Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Student Grants

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by local education authorities in Wales during 1992–93 on discretionary grants; how many students benefited; and what are the corresponding estimates for 1993–94.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Local authority expenditure on discretionary student awards amounted to £16·8 million in 1991–92. Provisional information suggests that in the academic year 1991–92, some 14,800 students received discretionary awards from authorities in Wales. This is the latest year for which the information is available.

Mr. Williams: The Minister will realise that, because of the stringent expenditure limits imposed by the Welsh Office, many local authorities in Wales have made severe cuts in discretionary grants. In Dyfed, where my constituency is, there has been a 50 per cent. cut, which means £700,000 less in discretionary grants this year. I am sure that everyone agrees that education and training have a critical role to play in the recovery of the Welsh economy. In its report, "Wales 2010", issued last week, the

Institute of Welsh Affairs placed education and training at the centre of its strategy. What does the Welsh Office intend to do about cuts in discretionary grants that will deprive hundreds of people in Dyfed and thousands of people across Wales of the support that they need to follow courses in further education?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sorry to hear that Dyfed is proposing such a cut. The grants are discretionary, which means that local authorities have the power but not the duty, so it is, no use blaming the Welsh Office—the hon. Gentleman should blame the local authorities. I am particularly sad about Dyfed, as in 1991–92 it allocated £2·9 million towards discretionary awards—the highest level of any county in Wales. I hope that those responsible will change their minds.

Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend assist the House by putting the answer to the question in the context of the numbers of people who now undergo further and higher education? How has that figure changed over the past 10 years and what are the present prospects?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a substantial increase in higher education. Student numbers have risen 20 per cent. in the past three years. We expect an increase of 10 per cent. in the number of further education students this year, on top of an increase of 55 per cent. since 1988–89.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that he has given complacent answers to the questions posed? Is he aware that thousands of young men and women in Wales have been denied further and higher education, as a direct result of the cuts that he has imposed on Welsh local education authorities, and parents and teachers in Wales are sick and tired of the Government's arrogant refusal to listen to anyone involved in education, whether on the subject of testing or on the teaching of English? Does he accept that education in Wales relies heavily on stability and resources and when will he give them to the Welsh people?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, seeks to blame the Government. We are talking about discretionary grants, which are allocated at the discretion of the local authorities. We have increased the amount of revenue support available to local authorities. Their largest bill is for teachers' salaries and the increase there has been pegged at 1·5 per cent. Local authorities have a responsibility for our young people and I urge them, particularly the Labour local authorities in Wales, to consider the matter further.

Diabetics

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that there is active support from hospital trusts and directly managed units for care of diabetics via community care.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Social services departments are responsible for assessing diabetic needs in discussion with the NHS and doctors; this is being guided by the relevant health gain protocol, a copy of which I hope that the hon. Gentleman has received.

Mr. Wardell: In view of the St. Vincent declaration to which the Government are a signatory, how does the Minister intend to assess the extent to which diabetics will enjoy a reduction in the number of complications, such as eye complications, as a result of the declaration, given that hospitals in Wales do not possess the means to collect the data to establish whether the targets have been or will be reached? Will he make sure that the data are collected and put in the hands of the district hospitals?

Mr. Jones: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that much important work is being done in this area following the setting up of the working party, which I regard as a most important source for informing health authorities and others as they devise their local strategies for health. As I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows, we have set targets under the protocol for a reduction by the year 2002 of one half in diabetic gangrene, one third in end stage renal failure and one third in new blindness.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely right that the trusts should make the decisions concerning their areas instead of being told what to do by people in Cathays Park or Gwydyr house in Whitehall?

Mr. Jones: I can fully reassure my hon. Friend that the changes in the national health service have brought about exactly what he seeks. Now there are clear-cut responsibilities. It is not Cathays Park but the health authorities which are the strategic planners, and the trusts, of which there are increasing numbers in Wales, are providing exactly the sort of health care that the people of Wales need.

EC Committee of the Regions

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how Wales's representatives on the European Committee of the Regions will be selected or elected.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): Final decisions will be taken once the Maastricht treaty has been ratified.

Mr. Jones: I find that answer rather puzzling as I was under the impression that at least four Members on the Opposition side of the House knew how these people are to be selected or elected. When will the Secretary of State lift the veil of secrecy over this issue and allow the House and the 3 million inhabitants of Wales to know what that little cabal apparently already knows?

Mr. Hunt: Whatever the official Opposition may seek to imply, Wales is a pluralist democracy and I am determined to ensure that our representation on the Committee of the Regions will reflect that. I hope that at some stage the official Opposition will make it clear whether they still broadly support the treaty signed at Maastricht. Since I entered politics, I have seen six major U-turns by the Labour party on Europe, and I believe that that party is going to adopt six different positions on the Maastricht treaty this week. That is incredible. It is about time the Opposition were serious about Europe.

Mr. Kinnock: In the name of a pluralist and open democracy, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he has any form of written agreement with the Welsh nationalist party? Does he realise that if he continues to deny the existence of such an agreement he calls into question the integrity of the Leader of Plaid Cymru?

Mr. Hunt: I have always made it clear that I do have an agreement in writing with the Leader of Plaid Cymru. In return, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he intends to support the treaty of Maastricht this week—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is going wide of the question.

Mr. Hunt: When considering the Committee of the Regions we need to know whether the right hon. Gentleman still agrees with his original words—that the Labour party was broadly in support of the treaty signed at Maastricht.

Mr. Wigley: Is it not the case that under the secret deal cobbled up by the Labour party with the local government associations in London, Wales would have only two seats out of the 24, compared with the three or four that are now likely to come to Wales? Labour's amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill contained no guarantee whatever that those seats would be distributed to any but one party, or that they would be distributed geographically in Wales; nor was there a guarantee of any reporting-back mechanism. Is it not time that the Labour party gave up fighting yesterday's battle, which it lost so badly, and started arguing positively for the good of Wales in Europe?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with the Leader of the Plaid Cymru [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Hunt: I hope that Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen will cease such behaviour. I completely agree with you, Madam Speaker, that it does not enhance respect for the House to have Labour Front-Bench spokesmen behaving in such a manner. I am extremely pleased to inform the House that the regional development section of the European Community Economic and Social Committee will visit south Wales next month to hold one


of its regular formal meetings. That meeting in Cardiff, will be hosted by the Welsh Office and it will be the first time in many years that the Committee has left Brussels. I shall be delighted to welcome it to Wales.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that by supporting the Committee of the Regions the Opposition are showing a degree of double standards because they support the Maastricht treaty in its entirety instead of—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have had enough of Members going wide of the question.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I wish to put a simple question to the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind that the Committee of the Regions is not a parliamentary committee, does he regard it as relevant that at the last general election the Liberal Democrats won 60,000 more votes in Wales than Plaid Cymru?

Mr. Hunt: That is, of course, a factor to be taken into account, as is the factor that the Liberal Democrats' representation in the House came down from three to one. The only reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman is leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the House is that he is the only one left.

Mr. Ron Davies: We are all wondering why the Secretary of State is so determined to avoid giving straight answers to straight questions on this. It is clear that his personal preference is for the posts to be filled by unfettered patronage, but that preference has been overridden by a decision of the House. Will he therefore confirm that he will comply fully with the spirit of that decision? Since our Welsh representatives will now be drawn from local government and will represent Welsh local government interests, does he agree that local government itself should decide on its own representatives? Does he understand that any veto, trickery or gerrymandering by him will be completely unacceptable?

Mr. Hunt: I have already given a straight answer to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). I said that I have a written agreement with the Leader of Plaid Cymru, which I shall honour. I understand that this week there is to be a great unveiling of new proposals for a Welsh assembly with fund-raising and legislative powers. It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that in the House although he had an opportunity to do so. The sooner he comes clean in the House rather than retiring to Llandudno for some party political occasion, the more I shall respect him. He has to decide how he will vote on Thursday. Will he support his right hon. Friend? Does he still support the Maastricht treaty? If not, there can never be a Committee of the Regions and that would be a great shame for Wales.

Higher Education (Research)

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to enhance the quality of research in the higher education sector in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Wyn Roberts: We have asked the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to work with the higher education institutions in Wales to raise the quality of

research. We have made an additional £2·9 million available in 1993–94, to enable the council to make a start on the task and to assist the former public sector institutions to establish research departments.

Mr. Richards: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but can he tell us the total amount available for research into higher education in Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Yes, it is about £35 million, which is rather more than the higher education sector secured from the Universities Funding Council last year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is vital for the future well-being of the Welsh economy that we should concentrate on research and innovation and seek to apply it from the higher education sector to industry and business in Wales.

Planning Decisions

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning decisions by Welsh planning authorities he has called in during the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Twelve.

Mr. Llwyd: Given that no planning permission has been revoked by the Welsh Office in the past two years, is it not time to confirm the view of many senior planning officers in Wales that they are not being given sufficient monitoring and assistance by the Welsh Office as they try to uphold the structure plans? When is the Welsh Office likely to introduce an element of flexibility into rural planning so that villages are allowed to grow naturally and not die?

Mr. Jones: Revocation is a seldom-used power. Normally we would expect planning decisions to be made properly by local planning authorities. That is why the power is so seldom used. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we look for an appropriate approach in all structure plans to cover rural areas.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to allow Radnorshire district council to decide the wind farm project at Bryntitli near Rhayader in my constituency has been warmly welcomed by my constituents? Is it not a further illustration of the fact that local democracy demands that, within the overall planning framework, decisions of that nature should be decided at local level?

Mr. Jones: I am happy to acknowledge my hon. Friend's warm welcome for our right hon. Friend's decision.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Why do the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State so persistently overrule local planning authorities, as they did over Browning Ferris, which was a despicable decision after a contrary unanimous decision by Newport borough council? Will the Minister reconsider the Welsh Office's attitude to such matters—which are better decided locally, as his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has just advised him?

Mr. Jones: A the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter was considered fully and I cannot make any further comment.

Patients Charter

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in Wales in meeting the targets set out in the patients charter.

Mr. David Hunt: We are achieving the waiting times guarantees set out in the patients charter and have made considerable progress towards meeting the other standards set in it.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that waiting times for a first out-patient appointment are just as important as those after seeing a consultant? Will he consider setting a target for such appointments?

Mr. Hunt: That is a very good point. I am happy to be able to say that from April next year we are prepared to set a target of two years from referral by general practitioners —[Interruption.] We are talking about the total number of cases. A target of two years from referral by the GP will apply to all cases, but that will not affect the target of one month for urgent treatment.

Mr. Llew Smith: If the Minister thinks that the patients charter is working; can he explain why there are approximately 1 million people on hospital waiting lists in the United Kingdom and why they are increasing by 1,000 per week? To deal with the problems of waiting lists, can he tell me how much of the £8 million promised for a hospital in Blaenau Gwent during the late 1980s has been spent?

Mr. Hunt: The latter point is.a matter for the health authority locally. The charter for patients in Wales is backed up by record resources. I give the hon. Gentleman one simple statistic. When we came into power in 1979, gross expenditure per capita on the NHS in Wales was £171. In this financial year, that has increased to £713 per capita—a rate of increase far higher than the rate of inflation. We are now targeting that record level of expenditure on the patients so as to improve patient care. That is what the patients charter in Wales is all about.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that little progress will be made on the patients charter if things carry on as they have been for the past month in the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, where the number of orthopaedic operations carried out since 1 April is 50 per cent. down on last year, where last week alone eight knee and hip joint replacement operations were cancelled, and where a new operating theatre—constructed following lobbying by me and the medical profession in the area and with great support from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones)—has been used only twice in the six weeks since it was handed over by the builders? With that rate of progress, the patients charter can be forgotten for orthopaedic operations in the Cardiff area for a very long time to come.

Mr. Hunt: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is making constituency points from the Front Bench. The South Glamorgan health authority has made very good progress in cutting the in-patient waiting list. Since October 1991, the total in-patient list has come down by 27 per cent., and the percentage of people waiting more than one year for non-urgent in-patient treatment has fallen by 33 per cent.

The hon. Gentleman implicitly criticises all the local staff who are doing such a marvellous job in achieving those targets.

Education and Training Targets

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that national education and training targets will be met; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Wyn Roberts: We have made it clear to education, training and employer organisations throughout Wales that we attach great importance to the national education and training targets. We have taken a number of measures in consultation with the training and enterprise councils and other partners to secure an ambitious rate of progress towards their achievement.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend be more specific about the role of TECs and colleges in achieving those targets?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Certainly. We have invited the TECs in Wales to form local strategic groups and to fix provisional local targets and planned joint action. We have also asked the Further Education Funding Council for Wales to encourage colleges to work very closely with the TECs to develop those local targets and strategies for achieving them.

Dr. Marek: The Minister will know that North-East Clwyd TEC has decided, instead of spending its money on training, to spend it on plush new offices with armchairs and first-class restaurants for itself and its staff. At the same time, I am continually getting complaints from still unemployed ex-Brymbo steel workers that training has not been up to the standard that was expected. It is high time the Minister brought those TECs under control and told them to spend the money where it should be spent on training.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The TECs are very well resourced. Certainly, they are better resourced than they were last year as far as training is concerned. I have no objection personally to the provision of good capital facilities for training and enterprise councils and for further education colleges as those colleges have been starved of funds under the local education authorities in years gone by. We have a lot of capital investment to do before our facilities reach the right level in Wales.

Angling

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has had from angling organisations in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: Several.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for that comprehensive reply. Among those representations, did he receive complaints from angling associations about the proposals of the National Rivers Authority to make good the shortfall in Government grant, which in 1996 will drop from 54 to 30 per cent? If the proposals are implemented, the local waters of Wales will be put out of the reach of


Welsh anglers. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the NRA to look for other sources of funding, rather than looking to the anglers of Wales?

Mr. Hunt: I am aware of the NRA's proposals to raise additional revenue by making a charge on fisheries' owners. The NRA is responsible for the allocation of resources between its regions. No proposals have yet been submitted to Ministers. I am aware that the NRA has put forward some proposals to conserve salmon and sea trout stocks in the NRA's Welsh region. We are considering the objections that we have received to those proposals.

Training and Further Education

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for Government spending on training and further education in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The resources available for training and further education in Wales in 1993–94 total almost £290 million. A further £6·2 million for learning for work, business start-up and training and enterprise council challenge was announced in the Budget on 16 March.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive and carefully researched answer. What progress has been made in meeting the youth training guarantee?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Meeting the youth training guarantee is a high priority and resources have been made available for that. Last September, 1,550 young people were awaiting placements under that scheme. I am glad to tell the House that, as of April, the number had dropped to 260.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister answer the parliamentary question that I have tabled three times during the past six weeks: will TEC budgets for 1993–94 be increased or decreased? Will there be an increase, as there should be, or will there be a cut of 8 to 10 per cent., as most of the TEC's believe will happen?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that we will not announce the individual TEC budgets because the TECs are in negotiation with training providers. We shall make the budgets known in about October, when those negotiations have been completed. We are providing £146·7 million for training and enterprise support this year and the TECs come within that budget. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before in reply to another of his questions, that the TECs will be well provided for.

Mr. Richards: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a real improvement in the capital budgets of further education colleges, following many years of neglect by local education authorities under the control of the Labour party? I refer especially to Llandrillo college in my constituency, which has had to use Portakabins for many years.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am aware of the deficiencies in our further education colleges, including Llandrillo. I am delighted to say that we are making £13·9 million of capital available for the improvement of further education colleges—following, as my hon. Friend said, years of neglect by Labour local education authorities.

Voluntary Organisations

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to increase the support provided by the Welsh Office for voluntary organisations in Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Substantial sums of taxpayers' money continue to be provided and the Government intend to maintain their commitment to a flourishing voluntary sector in Wales.

Mr. Michael: In other words, the Minister will not give any more money to the voluntary sector in Wales. Does not he realise that essential to the health of the community is a strong partnership between local authorities and voluntary organisations, especially youth organisations? That is being undermined because of the mean and petty cuts in the finance made available to local authorities by the Welsh Office. If, because they have to pull back to their statutory responsibilities, local authorities are unable to fund voluntary organisations, the Secretary of State for Wales should provide far more to make up the shortfall. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will do that?

Mr. Jones: I can simply refute the hon. Gentleman's allegations by reminding him that we have increased funding for the voluntary sector by one third in the past five years and threefold during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Recently, I wrote to the Secretary of State about funding for the Powys mental health project, which is in the voluntary sector. Is the Minister aware of widespread concern in rural Wales about increasing depressive illness and even suicide among farmers? Will he examine seriously the possibility of funding projects such as the Powys mental health project, which can, through the voluntary sector, be of such great assistance to farmers facing psychiatric illness?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I am more than happy to consider the specific project to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I seek to reassure him by saying that, in general, funding of the mental handicap strategy in Wales for the current financial year has increased by 15 per cent.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that a number of people in the voluntary sector are becoming active in assisting those with a drug dependency. There have been problems in my constituency recently, as I am sure the Minister is aware. The local branch of Llangefni drugs council within Gwynedd drugs council is seeking funding to develop services for people who have a drug dependency. Will the Minister sympathetically consider its funding application?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I will consider that particular application also. On 1 April, the Welsh Office issued a circular to all Welsh county councils reminding them what is involved in support for alcohol and drug dependency services. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the action point that local authorities should plan for continuity of services for alcohol and drug misusers under the new community care arrangements. As a priority, they should ensure that the implementation of social care plans properly reflects the needs of those groups. In general, funding for care in the community has increased by more than £8 million.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State is getting something of a reputation for being demob happy. Given the complacency of the Under-Secretary of State's answer, it is clear that he, too, does not think that he has much of a future at the Welsh Office. Does not the Under-Secretary understand that the voluntary sector depends heavily on local government support? As a result of this year's cuts in local government funding, the voluntary sector, together with vital public services, is having to pay a heavy cost for the Government's failures. Instead of berating and undermining local councils, why do not the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State get their act together, go to Brussels and make sure that the £75 million of finance that was allocated to Wales this year by the EC —but which has not been taken up—is brought back to Wales, used by local government and allocated to those voluntary sectors that desperately need that money?

Mr. Jones: Again and again, the hon. Gentleman blindly ignores the facts. Community care was to be £28 million this year, but has been increased to £36 million. That is the extent of the increase. If anyone is demob happy, it is the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is the third shadow Secretary of State for Wales in the current Parliament—and I guess that the Scottish puppet master is already trawling for the fourth.

Non-standard Working Hours

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the employed Welsh work force are working non-standard hours.

Mr. David Hunt: There is no single or standard agreed definition of "standard" hours, but the 1991 census shows that 21 per cent. of Welsh residents in employment worked fewer than 31 hours a week.

Mr. Flynn: That figure renders as complete fiction the Secretary of State's claim that he has increased the number of jobs in Wales, because tens of thousands of people in the Welsh work force are counted twice and sometimes three times. Did the Secretary of State notice that in the recent elections, the Conservative party managed to secure only 32 county councillors out of a possible 500 in Wales? That makes the present Secretary of State about as popular as Ceausescu in Romania in December 1990. Will not the Secretary of State confess that there has been no Welsh recovery but that a reasonably paid, highly skilled work force has been turned into a low-wage, low-skill sweat shop?

Mr. Hunt: I heard no expressions of approval following the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which were pretty disgraceful. Any Opposition Member who says that there has been no recovery in Wales and expects to be taken seriously is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I am pleased to announce that, in the past financial year, 190 offers of regional selective assistance have been accepted by companies for projects in Wales worth £73 million, involving investment of £470 million and 12,500 jobs. I can also announce new projects totalling more than £15 million, involving eight companies setting up, modernising or expanding operations in Wales. They plan to create 425 new jobs and to safeguard 156 existing jobs. The hon. Gentleman must be the only Member of Parliament who does not recognise that the Welsh dragon is breathing fire into the United Kingdom recovery.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Terrorist Bomb (City of London)

Mr. Lidington: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the damage done to Church of England property by the recent terrorist bomb in the City of London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners have made no assessment, as the future of these buildings—at least initially—is not within their jurisdiction. However, they naturally regret the damage to churches caused by the bomb. I understand that the diocese of London, local clergy and other interested parties will be making such an assessment in due course in the light of professional advice.

Mr. Lidington: Many people who care about the architecture and history of the City of London are particularly concerned about the damage done to St. Ethelburga's church. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Church Commissioners, rather than, as has been reported, trying to sell off the site to make a quick profit, will seek ways of organising an appeal to ensure that the church is fully restored?

Mr. Alison: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Church Commissioners' trying to sell off the site to make a quick profit, interested though we are in making profits on our property for the benefit of the clergy and their dependants. The disposal of the site and the determination of its future, however, are matters for the diocese and the parochial church council. If they decide that they want to launch an appeal and to develop the site as part of a pastoral reorganisation, the Church Commissioners will have some jurisdiction and will do everything possible to help.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however important the Church's view on the destruction of its property may be, it has a more important message to deliver—that killing and injuring people, as the IRA has done, is entirely unacceptable? Does he agree that the Church should be encouraged at every opportunity to make it clear to the IRA that there is only a difference of degree between what it does in the City of London and what others are currently doing in the former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Alison: I entirely support what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will recall, as I do, the many vivid photographs of churches and other buildings in London burning after the attacks of the totalitarian Hitler regime in the last war. Terrorists are totalitarian, and their attacks on London will be as abortive and ineffectual as Hitler's attacks.

Rents

Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners by what percentage in real terms rents for Church lands were changed in the years 1987 to 1992.

Mr. Alison: The average gross rent per acre in respect of the Church Commissioners' agricultural land increased by 6·5 per cent., from £56·84 in 1987 to £60·53 in 1992. That compared to an increase in the retail prices index of 34·8 per cent. over the same period, representing a reduction of 28 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Flynn: Does that figure include a premium charged by the Church to allow its tenants to permit the tormenting of dumb animals on their land in the name of sport by allowing fox hunting and deer hunting? Is not the right hon. Gentleman embarrassed that at the international whaling conference and elsewhere, Britain has been criticised by Japan and Norway for allowing hunting on our land? Does not that undermine entirely—

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman tried to catch my eye during questions on the whaling statement, he might be successful, but it is unfortunate that he should move now to the discussion of a subject that is not at all related to his original question.

Publications

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representating the Church Commissioners what plans there are for further publication; by the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners' annual report and accounts for 1992 are to be published in June, and the 1993 report of the Church Commissioners as central stipend authority will be published in the autumn. The commissioners produce leaflets on a variety of subjects from time to time.

Mr. Marshall: Might the Church Commissioners produce a leaflet on the arguments in favour of women priests, as many people in the House and outside it wish to see women become fully ordained priests of the Church of England? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty that is created by the current delay is not good for the Church of England or for those who either support or oppose the measure and that the sooner the matter is determined the better it will be for everyone?

Mr. Alison: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says, as, no doubt, will colleagues from all parties here and in the other place who serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is to meet later this afternoon and which is now the only possible source of delay. My hon. Friend can be assured that the Ecclesiastical Committee will present to the House for his benefit a comprehensive summary of the arguments for and against the ordination of women, I believe with an endorsement to the effect that the measure is expedient.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Divorce (Welfare of Children)

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance has been issued to courts regarding the consideration to be given to the welfare of children in divorce proceedings.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): May I acknowledge the

hon. Gentleman's expertise in this subject and tell him that the Judicial Studies Board organises training courses for both district judges and specialist circuit judges at which the needs of children are thoroughly discussed? Eminent child psychiatrists, paediatricians, court welfare officers, social workers and academics play important roles in briefing judges on this vital topic, alongside guidance from the Department of Health on the Children Act 1989.

Mr. Wicks: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree, however, that, given that one in four children have parents who are likely to divorce before those children reach the age of 16, it is high time that his Department introduced proposals to implement the Law Commission's report aimed at putting children first in divorce proceedings? Are the costs of conciliation the reason for the delay? If so, does the Minister agree that the social, emotional and financial costs of a failure to act to help children are greater than the costs of implementation?

Mr. Taylor: It was, is and will continue to be the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration. Many of us have sympathy for the parting parents, but the children are the paramount priority and the Department is well seized of that fact.

Stockton-on-Tees County Court

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the future of Stockton-on-Tees county court.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor is currently undertaking wide consultation on the proposed closure of Stockton-on-Tees county court. No final decision will be made on the future of the court until the results of that consultation are known.

Mr. Devlin: Given that, last week, the Local Government Commission made the welcome recommendation that county Cleveland should be abolished and replaced with unitary authorities, will my hon. Friend delay making any final decision on Stockton-on-Tees county court until the new unitary authorities are decided upon, as one of them will be Stockton-on-Tees and as there will be a consequent reversal of the policy of centralising all facilities in Middlesbrough?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is as vigorous as ever in his pursuit of his constituency interests. He will not draw me into making any comment about Cleveland, however—nor do I think that he would want me to. The point that he made may be relevant to the consultation that is in progress, but it is not for me to prejudge its outcome and I am sure that the House would not expect me to do so.

Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister aware of the concern—not only in Stockton-on-Tees county court but in other county courts up and down the country—about reports over the weekend of the Government's intention to privatise the court services? Is he further aware that that concern is widespread, bearing in mind that disastrous impact of privatisation on other aspects of the justice system that we have witnessed over recent weeks and months? When does the Minister intend to make a statement to the House


about that and what proposals will he introduce to ensure that the confidentiality and best interests of the consumers of legal services are properly safeguarded?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to lay out the priorities as he did in the conclusion of his question; it is the consumers and users whose interests must be considered as the most important. I am aware of certain press comment during the weekend along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it is not always from sources of the greatest possible fidelity, as I am sure he will know from his own experience, as I do from mine. Consideration has been given to the court service becoming an agency under the next steps arrangements. Such thoughts are current and are being very carefully deliberated on.

Legal Aid

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effect of changes in legal aid eligibility arrangements upon the number of women seeking injunctions to restrain a violent partner.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Almost half of all households are now eligible for civil legal aid. A woman seeking an injunction against a violent partner would have her means assessed separately from those of her partner and for this reason may be more likely to qualify than the overall eligibility figure suggests.

Mr. Cohen: May I tell the Minister of a constituent of mine whose violent partner was pestering her but who could not get an injunction because, although she had low earnings, she just fell outside the new legal aid limit? The police told her that they were limited in their actions because they did not have an injunction to enforce. Is not this a serious loophole in the new legal aid limit? Does not that mean that many women at risk of assault will be without court protection? What will the Government do about that?

Mr. Taylor: I do not think that the House would expect me to comment on an individual case. Civil legal aid is available, with a contribution, to up to 48 per cent. of households and very generous allowances are made in the determination of disposable income. The amended regulations provide that, from 12 April, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, constant attendance allowance paid as an increase to a disablement pension and any payment out of the social fund will be disregarded in the calculation of disposable income for advice and assistance. If the hon. Gentleman wrote to me about the case in point, I would gladly receive his letter.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House by how much expenditure on legal aid has risen since 1979? Am I right in saying that it has increased 10-fold since then?

Mr. Taylor: In 1979, legal aid covered about 900,000 participants and that figure has now gone up to 3·1 million. In the past four years, the cost of legal aid has doubled and it now stands at £1·1 billion. Contrary to all that is being said about legal aid being cut, it is set to go

on rising significantly over the next three years, and the number of participants receiving legal aid is set to rise from 3·1 million to 4 million.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the position of women who have been subjected to violence and have had to come before the courts was brought home with stark and appealing directness at the Conservative party conference in Scotland by that courageous woman—who was described as "Judy"—who highlighted the difficulties that people in those circumstances face? Did the Minister notice in particular what she said about the desirability of having a female member on each appeal court Bench? Will he give some help on that?

Mr. Taylor: I should like to reflect on the second and rather specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman. As to the first point about women's vulnerability in court, the Lord Chancellor and I are sympathetic towards that matter, as we are towards the vulnerability of children in court and in cases involving their parents. A court can be a hostile, unnatural, awesome and frightening place for people who have experienced fear and trouble already. The process must be made more congenial to people and every sympathy for their needs must be shown.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the eligibility alterations have affected one class of women above all others—women who are working wives and mothers and who have a separate income, which now means that they are not able to obtain legal aid? Very often, children are involved. Will the Minister for once accept that people are being hurt by his Department and his Government?

Mr. Taylor: No one should imagine for a minute that the Lord Chancellor and I considered the recently necessary application of discipline to the legal aid budget with any joy; rather, we did so with a very heavy heart. Nevertheless, the cost of legal aid is set to go on rising. It is available in civil cases to 48 per cent. of the community, and there is no upper limit in criminal cases. As a spokesman in the House of Lords said, our system of legal aid remains almost certainly one of the most generous in the world—that was said by a spokesman for the Labour party.

Contract and Estate (Report)

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to introduce legislation to implement Law Commission report No. 174, "Privity of Contract and Estate".

Mr. John M. Taylor: As I announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), on 31 March, Official Report, column 198, the Government have decided, after careful consideration, to implement the Law Commission's recommendations for future leases but not for existing leases. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as there is a suitable legislative opportunity, but I cannot predict when such an opportunity will occur.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be impractical to legislate retrospectively? However, in framing any amendments to the law, will he consult all


those involved, especially the professionals who advise on property matters, so that the people who have unwittingly been made bankrupt in these perplexing cases will not be subject to that particular law in the future?

Mr. Taylor: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to say, and he understands, that it is the careful judgment of the Government that these measures cannot be retrospective. However, the consultation that he urges is valuable; there is a need for it, and he will be pleased to learn that the process has already begun.

Legal Aid

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a further statement on changes in the legal aid scheme.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Changes to the permanent payment on account scheme for barristers came into effect on 1 April. Changes to the financial conditions for legal aid came into effect on 12 April. Standard fees are to be introduced in the magistrates courts on 1 June.

Mr. Vaz: Further to the inadequate reply that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), is he aware that reported cases of domestic violence in London have increased by 1,000 per cent. in eight years and that for the victims of domestic violence legal representation is very much a case of the difference between life and death? If evidence is brought before the Minister or the Lord Chancellor to show that justice has been denied because of the increase in payment being required of the Department, will he reverse the savage cuts?

Mr. Taylor: I would not be able to reverse the decision even if I wanted to because it was a decision taken by the House with a majority of 49 votes. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Lord Chancellor and I are receptive to evidence. The answer is, of course we are.

Solicitors (Rights of Audience)

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made in extending rights of audience to solicitors in the higher courts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Law Society submitted its formal application for extended rights of audience in November 1992. The Lord Chancellor and the four designated judges will be in a position to reach a decision on the application when they receive the advice of the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct and of the Director General of Fair Trading later in the summer.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread concern about the savings that have had to be made by the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to legal aid. There is also great concern about the committee's slow progress in extending solicitors' rights which, in the circumstances, would clearly lead to a substantial financial saving. There have been recent reports that the Government legal service and Crown Prosecution Service's lawyers are not to be recommended to receive the extended rights of audience in the higher courts. Will my hon. Friend consider those proposals carefully because, in the circumstances, there is clearly an unanswerable case for solicitors to be granted those rights?

Mr. Taylor: I take my hon. Friend's question in exactly the spirit in which it was put. The mechanism for determining wider rights of audience is extremely complicated, not least because the House, in its wisdom, chose to make a complex mechanism when it passed the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I think that there will be progress fairly soon, but I am bound to say that it will not be quick enough to satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister explain exactly what is meant by wider rights of audience? Has it got something to do with the Lord Chancellor trotting off to Cyprus to see Asil Nadir? It seems like a shady business to me. A man hands over £440,000 to the Tory party and a member of the Cabinet goes to Cyprus to have some private discussions. Would that apply to anybody else in Britain?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. That is not at all relevant. Does the Minister wish to answer?

Mr. Taylor: I did not want the afternoon to come to an end without Asil Nadir getting in somewhere. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased, but not surprised, to know that Mr. Nadir's legal aid certificate has been frozen.

Whaling

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the International Whaling Commission meeting which ended in Kyoto, Japan, last Friday evening. The meeting was attended by 40 member countries. The United Kingdom team, led by my officials with help from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment, played an active and prominent role.
I believe that all our key objectives were reached. First and foremost, the IWC's moratorium on all commercial whaling, which has been in place since 1985–86, remains, despite great pressure from Norway and Japan to have it lifted. I think that you would agree, Madam Speaker, that this has been the prime purpose of the United Kingdom and our like-minded allies. We are pleased once again to have achieved it. We argued strongly that we could not agree to its ending, as our essential preconditions to any such consideration have still not been met.
The scientific committee presented some further work on aspects of the revised management procedure. We made it clear that we could not formally accept that as the basis for considering a lifting of the moratorium until and unless we were satisfied on all other aspects of a new scheme, including new observation and inspection procedures and, crucially, acceptable and humane methods of killing whales. We thus opposed again requests from Japan for interim quotas for minke whales in the north Pacific, and we said that we could not accept Norway's plans for coastal whaling.
There was a great deal of further discussion on the proposal, launched at the Glasgow meeting last year, for a circumpolar whale sanctuary in the Antarctic. We again expressed our keen interest and support for this concept, and we co-sponsored resolutions calling for further work on the importance of environmental threats to whale stocks and on their proper management. Some contracting parties argued that they needed more time to study some of the detailed aspects of the sanctuary approach, such as the delineation of boundaries, matters of jurisdiction and future research plans for the sanctuary.
We had warned earlier that that might be the case. We were concerned that matters should not be brought to a head in circumstances in which the whole scheme might come to nothing. At length, the IWC decided that, although it endorsed the concept, it would work to resolve outstanding issues at a special inter-sessional working group. A final decision is planned for the 46th meeting of the IWC next year in Mexico. The United Kingdom will play its major part in ensuring that we achieve that end.
On so-called "scientific whaling", we were critical once more of both the Norwegian and Japanese plans for yet further lethal research on minke whale stocks. Many of us in the House feel that the word "scientific" when used in this way has little to do with the realities.
We have consistently argued that research should, if at all possible, be through non-lethal means. In that regard, we welcomed an offer by Japan to discuss with scientists a programme to look for the reason for the poor recovery of the great whale stocks. That is an encouraging sign and, in the circumstances of our condemnation of many things that have happened, we should welcome it.
We again pressed home at length our concerns about the methods used in whaling operations—including secondary means of killing those whales which do not die from explosive harpoons. We condemned especially the use of the electric lance, which we think is particularly cruel. Some data on humane killing are coming forward following adoption of the United Kingdom's action plan last year, but many serious questions remain. The commission agreed our proposals for a further workshop for 1995. Meanwhile, we shall vigorously maintain our view that present methods are unacceptable.
We also took action on pilot whales in the Faroes, tabling detailed papers and securing IWC support for further studies, noting our concerns about the cruelty of the methods and the organisation of this drive fishery.
Small cetaceans are an area about which I am particularly concerned, because, if we are not careful, our arrangements to protect the larger whales will drive many to take action against smaller cetaceans and cause real depredations in those stocks. We believe that the IWC is fully competent to consider both the larger and smaller cetaceans, and that belief was reinforced.
We fought to secure specific and improved protection for harbour porpoises in the north Atlantic and for striped dolphins. There has been new progress in considering better, co-operative ways of addressing improved means of protecting small cetaceans, many of which are threatened in directed and by-catch fisheries.
The fact that many people do not wish the IWC to uphold what I believe to be its fundamental responsibilities in this area, is a serious matter. Without that, we cannot look at the whole range of cetacean problems as one. Instead, we will find ourselves dealing with the larger animals and thereby, in some senses, endangering species which would otherwise be protected.
The United Kingdom presented a paper and gained consensus support for new IWC studies on whale watching. That is an innovative and benign way of using the world's whale stocks—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister will have plenty of time to watch whales when he gets the sack.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will realise that we are dealing with a serious matter, for which cheap political remarks are not necessary.
As I was saying, that is an innovative and benign way of using the world's whale stocks. It is big business, possibly $0·4 billion currently, and growing rapidly, including in Japan. Our plans for an IWC involvement with studies and recommendations were fully agreed.
Finally, I must mention Norway. I am deeply saddened by her apparent plans to go ahead with commercial whaling. I urge her to reconsider. Many commissioners signed a statement last week underlining the dangers of undermining the commission and its work. The Prime Minister of Norway, in her introduction to the Brundtland report, made it quite clear that, in circumstances where individual nations disagreed with international agreements, they should accept those international agreements even though that may be to their own hindrance. I am sorry that Norway does not take that view on this issue.
Overall, this was a valuable meeting, with excellent results in our further steps towards safeguarding whale stocks. I do hope that the House agrees.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I thank the Minister for his statement on this historic meeting of the International. Whaling Commission. The outcome of the meeting should be welcomed by conservationists and environmentalists throughout the world.
I am glad that the Minister referred to the cruelty involved in commercial whaling. The methods of killing whales are horrific; there can be no doubt that they experience great pain and suffering before they die. I hope that the Minister will also endorse the fact that the resumption of commercial whaling will threaten whale stocks. Quotas are not enforceable, and all the evidence shows that people who indulge in commercial whaling will flout the quotas. There can be no alternative to a ban on all whaling.
May I ask the Minister about the proposal for a southern sanctuary south of the 40th southern parallel? He may recall that I wrote to him before the meeting urging the Government to support the proposal. I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom voted for it. Can the Minister tell the House when progress will be made on it? Is it the case that there will be an inter-sessional meeting on the sanction proposal in Australia?
What resources and research are the Government planning to contribute to ensure that this important proposal is properly backed? As the Minister recognises and the House understands, the proposal is important because, if the sanctuary is agreed, it will mean that whales in the southern sanctuary will be properly protected, no matter what happens in the future with regard to commercial whaling.
May I ask the Minister about the proposal by the Japanese, which is accepted, to establish a working group to identify objectives for research into blue whales? I must point out that there is concern that Japan's aim is to attempt to demonstrate that the recovery of the blue whale population is being hindered by the minke whale in order to get some justification for renewed minke whaling. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on that issue.
The Labour party welcomes the fact that the commission passed resolutions condemning the scientific whaling programmes of Norway and Japan, and that the commissioner's statement chastising Norway for its plans to resume commercial whaling was passed. What will the British Government do in response to those resolutions?
I understand that the United States Administration have written to Iceland—which withdrew from the Commission last year to resume commercial whaling—Norway and Japan stating that sanctions will be considered, where appropriate, against countries that choose to ignore the IWC conservation programme and resume commercial whaling without the requisite IWC approval. Can the Minister confirm that the United States has made that communication? For their part, what are the United Kingdom Government doing fully to explore all opportunities for such action?
Will the Minister address the question of Norway's position, taking into account the intention of its Government that Norway should enter the European Community? After all, it is the case that the European Community bans commercial whaling. What sense does it make, and how can it possibly be justified, for Norway to resume commercial whaling and at the same time seek to enter the European Community? Surely it cannot be right

for a country to apply to join the European Community if it intends to flout one of the Community's resolutions, and makes no secret of that in the process of joining.
I put it to the Minister that the decisions of the International Whaling Commission are of enormous significance to the future of whale stocks in the seas and to the wider environmental issues. It is one thing to pass resolutions and have all these meetings—what is needed is action to stop the cruelty. In particular, we must judge the situation with regard to the action that is taken to prevent commercial whaling interests in Iceland, Japan and Norway from continuing to damage the whales. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a lot more at stake than whales, important though they are. What is at stake is whether we will have effective United Nations-backed action—the IWC is recognised by the United Nations—to tackle these environmental and conservation issues.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with him entirely about the southern sanctuary. It seemed better to be reticent in advance, simply because I wanted to make it clear that our prime need was to keep the moratorium going. That must be so. We have done the best we could on the southern sanctuary, and I hope that next time we will be able to complete our work. We shall be doing work at the inter-sessional meeting.
We spend £25 million a year on the British Antarctic survey. Much of that money will be a great help in giving the necessary research backing, and there is new MAFF-funded research on the issue. I shall ensure that that is set for the advantage of the inter-sessional group which will meet in Hobart, Australia, in October-November.
The hon. Gentleman refers to research into blue whales and his fear of the Japanese. I shall keep an eye on the matter, but it is important that the Japanese were prepared to enter into the investigation. Until we think or know otherwise, I am prepared to go along with their intentions. I hope that we can encourage them. Certainly it would not be proper for such an investigation to start with a prejudgment on either side. We want to know the facts. That is what the investigation is about.
The international community has shown Norway that its largely unilateral approach is unacceptable. If Norway were to come into the European Community, it would have to accept the rules. I do not suggest that it cannot say or argue what it likes in advance, but it belongs to an international body that has banned commercial whaling, and it ought to meet its obligations. If Norway were to join the EC, it would be expected to meet its obligations within the Community.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opinions on the International Whaling Commission's role and the importance that goes beyond whales of dealing with the environment. That is why I get somewhat angry about the reaction of Norway. If a nation cannot accept the scientifically based decisions of an international organisation to which it belongs because they happen not to be in its interests, it is infuriating when that nation goes around the world telling other nations to obey other international institutions the demands of which those nations find onerous. There should be one standard that should be adhered to not only by Norway but by the rest of us.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom has been one of the leaders in the IWC, and of late the pressure groups in this country have led the movement to protect whales internationally? Will he therefore try his best to keep whales out of the other more spurious and doubtful campaigns in the way that he has stated today? Is he aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was talking about whales in the Council of Europe last week at 15 to the dozen, as only he can?

Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend that this is not a matter of party political division. I should like to recognise the work of my official Tony Burne and his officials not only at the meeting but in the many months that have gone before.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is a sterling supporter of the moratorium, and even if I were likely to slip from my view, he would soon see that I was ratcheted back to the position in which I ought to be.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I thank the Minister, the Government and Tony Burne and his colleagues, and welcome the success of the session of the IWC? May I add to the pressure on the Government to make their view clear to those who are threatening to go their own way?
Will the Minister reaffirm to the House that what Japan calls research, but which ends up as catching whales for food, and what Norway calls necessary hunting, even though it now appears that the majority of Norwegians questioned in opinion polls are against it, are unjustified?
Does the Minister further agree that the last couple of centuries have seen the loss of various species of whale completely, and that until it is shown scientifically that there are growing and sustainable stocks of all species of whale, no argument that allows commercial whaling to continue is acceptable to this community or to any other country that calls itself civilised?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the conservation elements in such decisions. It would be wrong of us to endanger any part of the whale population.
I am extremely suspicious of those who now tell us that there are enough minke whales to take, when the only reason that there are reasonable stocks of minke whales is because the other larger whales proved more profitable in the past. They sought to destroy those stocks and nearly succeeded, and are now suggesting that the minke whale has become essential, when it has been saved only by the fact that it was not big enough to attract depredations in the past. Of course conservation comes first, but I think that being able to insist on the rules comes a close second. I want to find a much more humane method of taking whales before I shall even discuss the possibility of resuming that activity.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept the argument that whales have human levels of intelligence, and therefore undergo extreme suffering when they are murdered by inhumane methods? Will he undertake to ensure that our Government will not support any resumption of the killing of whales unless a proper and humane method of killing is discovered,

whatever the other arguments for killing? Is he prepared to help to seek to enforce a worldwide ban on the sale of whalemeat?

Mr. Gummer: We ban whale product sales in the European Community, which is a good way of taking the lead. I am aware that the problem for the whale is that, because it is thought of as a large fish, people fail to remember that it is a mammal, with a highly developed nervous system. I am not sure that I precisely agree with the human comparison that my hon. Friend used, but the whale is an advanced animal. Three criteria have to be met before we even discuss the resumption of commercial whaling, none of which has so far been met—all three have to be met before such a discussion can take place.

Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Members receive considerable correspondence about the subject, not least from secondary and primary schools, where there is much horror at the vicious and uncivilised manner of killing? The dolphin population around the shores of Wales is diminishing and urgently needs protection. Has the right hon. Gentleman any details of how Iceland, Norway and Japan have been monitored by the Commission and Governments? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to go away, read Melville's "Moby Dick" and take note of the character, the monomaniac Captain Ahab. If he does so, the right hon. Gentleman may become even more concerned about the cause in which the nation wants him to succeed.

Mr. Gummer: I have been criticised for doing the opposite: for being too tough—and I do not accept that criticism. I think that any further reading about Captain Ahab may make me less able to remain quiet in the face of the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover, so I shall do my best to act without a further reading of the book.
We must be careful not to extend the issue, so that we push everything else into insignificance. That is one reason why I believe that we should look into the management of all cetaceans, not just those which have so far been covered by the International Whaling Commission, which has full power to deal with other members of the whale family. It would be hard if some change of nomenclature resulted in our damaging the stocks of some of the smaller cetaceans—as is now happening. We must monitor the position more effectively, and we shall seek to do so.

Mr. Barry Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done on the subject. I am particularly grateful that he has told the House of the considerable pressure on the smallest cetaceans that results from the barbarous activity. People on the south coast have been entertained by the dolphins that have taken up residence in the Solent recently. Their presence not only shows the improvement in water quality there, but that dolphins are clearly migrating from Wales.
Although we all appreciate that the southern sanctuary would be the best possible policy, would my right hon. Friend care to consider the questions that I have been asking the Foreign Office—proposing that we extend the 200-mile exclusion zone around the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia and all our Antarctic property?


While we always strive for international agreement, in the short term would not 200-mile territorial limits be a quick answer to preserving some of these stocks?

Mr. Gummer: I shall get out my atlas and check on my hon. Friend's questions.

Ms Glenda Jackson: While I welcome the Minister's statement, my constituents believe—I share their belief—that the phrase "the humane control of whales" is a contradiction in terms. Surely we should not encourage any method with claims to killing whales humanely, however long the scientific seal of good housekeeping might be. We should move further and more swiftly towards a permanent and total ban on all whaling.
What steps does the Minister contemplate the Government taking to bring pressure to bear on Norway, which has taken this unilateral decision, to make it acknowledge the commitments to which it has signed up, and to stop forthwith any whaling at all?

Mr. Gummer: I know that some people share the hon. Lady's views, but if we are to ask Norway to obey her commitments, we must also obey ours. The International Whaling Commission is clearly set up to manage whaling, not to abolish it. So much is quite clear in the international agreement. I therefore could not possibly demand of Norway that she adopt a responsibility that goes contrary to what we have all signed up to. That is why the United Kingdom has been quite clear about this.
We have readily taken on our international obligations. We insist on others carrying them through, but the hon. Lady does her cause harm by undermining the basis on which we have achieved and will extend this moratorium. Once we start saying that we do not approve of the IWC's basic constitution, it will be very difficult for us to keep Norway or Japan under control. I am much more interested in saving the whale than in advancing a particular view.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his great achievements at the conference will be undermined unless we can bring real pressure to bear on the countries that seek to ignore the rules of the club? Does he agree that, far from excluding Norway from the European Community, we could bring much more pressure to bear if we encouraged her to join it? One of the benefits of the Maastricht Bill is that it will bring greater enforceability of the rules of the European Community, including rules affecting conservation, of whales or sea fish. We should welcome Norway in, and then make sure that she obeys the rules or pays the price.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say that no country can join the European Community without accepting the obligations that that entails. Until now, we have not been able to insist on that; the great advantage of Maastricht is that it makes such insistence possible. The sooner the House passes the Maastricht Bill and Britain returns to the centre of the Community, the better for my hon. Friend, for us and for the whales.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Government deserve congratulations on the outcome of the negotiations and on their far-sighted view of the consequential threat to other cetaceans. Does not the Secretary of State believe, however, that our position is undermined when Norway and Japan refer to us as "hypocrites" because we

oppose the harvesting of whales for food while permitting the hunting of equally intelligent animals for sport? Would we not be in a far stronger position to show our compassion for all other species if we banned fox hunting in Britain?

Mr. Gummer: That is the first question today to undermine the position of the United Kingdom in international affairs. The argument for whales derives, first, from the fact that they are an international, not a national, resource. They are therefore clearly the responsibility of an international body.
Secondly, whales are threatened as a species, and that makes them wholly different from any of the animals to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Thirdly, there is no indication that, at least in present numbers, whales are so predatory that we have to cull them to protect other species. Again, that makes them entirely different from vermin and pests.
The hon. Gentleman should recognise those distinctions. I know that he feels strongly about the issue, but he does the cause of the protection of whales no good at all by confusing those distinctions. He can put his case, and I shall argue vehemently against him, because in my view hunting is one of the sensible ways to ensure that the balance of nature is maintained. We can have that argument, but he should not try to drive a wedge between us on whales when we are on the same side.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will the Minister confirm that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), he said that the Government do not envisage any measures against any country that unilaterally breaches the moratorium on whale hunting?

Mr. Gummer: No, I was answering the hon. Lady's main question, which was whether I was prepared to insist that the Norwegians had broken the IWC agreement because they were not opposed to whaling per se. The IWC is not opposed to whaling per se. It has a moratorium because it believes that the proper conditions for resuming whaling are not being met.
I have made it clear that we shall seek to bring all kinds of pressure on Norway and Japan to ensure that the rules are kept. So far, we have been successful in that. Norway has threatened to withdraw from the IWC, but has so far not done so. Iceland has withdrawn, but has not resumed commercial whaling. My job is to ensure the end rather than the means. I want to stop whales being hunted unless there are circumstances in which that becomes necessary.
I say not that there are no measures that we would fail to take, but that we shall take every measure that is open to us. So far we have been successful. I have today repeated my plea to the Norwegian Government to recognise that it is entirely inimical to their normal stance in international affairs to insist upon whaling when any other country that broke an international agreement of this sort would be attacked by the Norwegian Government right from the start.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, if Norway was daft enough to join the Common Market, it could decide to have an opt-out on whales anyway, as the Tory Government have done on the social chapter? If the British people are barmy enough to listen to this Minister and accept what he has to say, would it not be good for


them to reflect upon the fact that the Government promised protection for the British fishermen, many of whom are now out of work? They promised protection for the miners, the steel workers and the shipyard workers, but they are nearly all on the dole. If the whales could listen to me for a moment, I would say to them, "Don't believe a word this Government say."

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the House expected that question. It would be helpful to the House if it could be advertised when the hon. Gentleman proposes to put his maiden question that does not involve lowering the tone of debate to the level of party political abuse.

Mr Cynog Dafis: Does the International Whaling Commission consider the effect of pollution and submarine development resources on the cetacean population? I am thinking especially of the dolphin population in Cardigan bay, whose survival may be endangered by the development of oil and gas resources. They may be driven from Cardigan bay to the south of England, and I should not like to see that happen.
Is there any liaison between the Minister's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry about the granting of licences? If there is, will he ensure that that Department undertakes a proper environmental impact assessment of Cardigan bay in advance of any further licensing for oil exploration there?

Mr. Gummer: For obvious reasons, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is involved in discussions on anything that might affect marine life. We carry out a great deal of research and are concerned to ensure that pollution and other factors do not cause the loss of stocks. The reasons for the reductions in stocks seem quite different, but we keep a close eye on the matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not wish to give as an

excuse for the resumption of commercial whaling the claim that we merely have to do something else to the environment? I am keen to ensure that we stick by that first principle—the moratorium—and proceed from there. I shall keep a close eye on pollution.

Madam Speaker: We must now move on.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Madam Speaker: I know when the hon. Gentleman came into the House.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

RATEABLE VALUES

That the draft Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
That the Matter of Crime in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

Sport

Mr. Simon Coombs: I beg to move
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its continuing recognition of sport's role in enhancing the nation's life and its prestige abroad.
It seems appropriate that we should be given the opportunity to debate sport this week and on this day; this week, the first of the one-day internationals between England and Australia heralds the arrival of summer, of a kind, and we also wish good luck to the British Lions touring team in New Zealand. This day is also appropriate, as I am sure that all hon. Members here want to congratulate Miss Rebecca Stephens on becoming the first British woman ever to reach the summit of Mount Everest. I understand that she comes from Fulham, and I cannot imagine a more excellent example of upward mobility than she has demonstrated today.
Some hon. Members—no doubt among the few who are not present—might feel that sport is not as serious a subject as many that we have debated at length during past weeks. Some hon. Members might say that it is a trivial topic, but I must tell them, and any here who may be tempted to say the same, that sport is a topic which concerns a huge number of our constituents; a topic which is perhaps more aired and discussed in the pubs and clubs than many of those that exercise our minds in the Chamber. It is appropriate that, once in a while, we should have the opportunity to discuss some of the issues which concern us and our constituents. I can see that I have already got some minds working. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

Mr. Harry Greenway: I was slightly sad to hear my hon. Friend use the word "trivial" in relation to sport, even to dismiss it. Does he accept that sport is fundamental to physical education, and that physical education is as important a part of a child's education as any other, in that it contributes to the positive physical development of the child and that has a bearing on the child's mental development?

Mr. Coombs: I have no quarrel with what my hon. Friend has said. I almost think that he had an opportunity to look at the text of my speech as it lay on the Bench between us, because I shall talk about that aspect of sport later. There is nothing trivial about the subject—only perhaps in the minds of some people who fail to appreciate its importance.
Before I go any further I shall quote for the benefit of the House one or two figures that illustrate the significant part that sport plays in this country. I am indebted to the Henley Centre for Forecasting, which produced a report for the Sports Council about three years ago showing that the value of sport in its broadest sense was £8·27 billion at 1990 prices, which was equivalent to 1·7 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product for that year. That figure had seen some growth in the previous five years. In 1985, it was £5·58 billion, which is equivalent to 1·4 per cent. of GDP.
Another way to measure those figures is by the number of people employed in the sport-related economy. The Henley centre estimated that sport-related economic activity generated just over 467,000 jobs in 1990, which

accounted for slightly more than 2 per cent. of employees in the United Kingdom. It does not include the large number of unpaid hours put in by the tens of thousands of voluntary workers who give their services—estimated at more than 70 million hours in 1990. Sport is a significant industry and significant part of the British economy.
Sport contributes to the health of the nation and is a constant source of national pride, whether it is for Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis in snooker, Nigel Mansell in motor racing, Linford Christie or Sally Gunnell in Olympic athletics. All of them are world or Olympic champions who bring glory to a country which, all too often, has a tendency to under value its achievements.

Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Gentleman began his speech with a reference to the one-day cricket game. I urge him to keep a keen eye on Glamorgan county cricket because Viv Richards—even at the age of 41—in partnership with Matthew Maynard, is going great guns and we should win something this year. I draw his attention also to the need, throughout Britain and certainly in Wales, for more all-weather pitches, with decent changing facilities, that are close to, or within, the large council estates. If we had more of those facilities throughout the nation, there might be less juvenile crime.

Mr. Coombs: I wish Messrs. Richards and Maynard success on all those occasions when they are not playing against my county of Hampshire, of which more anon. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in his call for those facilities, which will enable cricket to flourish in Britain. Again, he has gone slightly ahead of my own comments on that matter, but if he stays with the debate long enough, he will hear what I have to say, and I hope that he will be pleased with it.
I hope that, in the debate, we can focus on some of the problems that sport faces today but not lose sight of our achievements. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has it in his power to help British sport to fresh success in the future, but he cannot do everything. A complex network of organisations exists to ensure that sport is the prerogative of all of us, while those of real ability can be found, encouraged and trained to the level of international success. The pyramid of United Kingdom sport should have the broadest possible base and the highest possible apex, for all our sakes.
A number of the issues that I shall raise concern the funding and administration of sport, but I shall begin with the exciting prospect of the Olympic games coming to Britain. We are now firmly embarked on Manchester's bid for the Olympic games in the year 2000. Naturally, we all wish Bob Scott and his team every success in the campaign, which will culminate in Monte Carlo on 23 September. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given tremendous support to Manchester's bid, and his presence in Monte Carlo on that date, when the decision is to be taken, would be a great boost to the Olympic movement. It would significantly increase the chances of Manchester's bid being successful. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that message to the Prime Minister and urge him to go to Monte Carlo in September.
I do not need to point out the importance of a successful bid by Manchester to the infrastructure of the north-west. As I see one or two Members from that region


in the Chamber, I shall leave such comments to them. I hope that they will take up that point, because it seems to me to be of crucial importance.
It is also worth pointing out that home advantage in the Olympic games is of inestimable value. We have only to consider the success of Spain in Barcelona and of South Korea in Seoul. Last year, Spain increased its gold medals from one in Seoul to 13 on its home territory. Four years earlier, South Korea won 12 gold medals in Seoul and was in fourth place in the medals table. Those countries wanted success and were prepared to invest in it—not only in new stadiums, but in support of their athletes.
We must decide how much success we want and how many medals we want to win. We must then be prepared to resource the effort needed to reach that target. The Sports Council recently announced its grant aid to Olympic sports leading up to the Atlanta games in 1996. The cash increases gradually from £5·1 million to £5·7 million, but, allowing for inflation, the value of the grant reduces. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind when he discusses such matters with the Sports Council.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Manchester Olympics bid and its importance to Britain and the north-west, will he say whether he agrees that one of the most crucial advantages of Manchester winning the bid, as I am confident it will, will be the enormous boost to tourism in Britain in general, and in the north-west in particular? With the vast majority of hotel beds in the north-west being in my constituency of Blackpool, I have an obvious interest in the Manchester bid succeeding. I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has spoken about that today.

Mr. Coombs: One of the nice things about a debate on sport is that we all agree with each other on almost everything. For the third time, I am happy to welcome an intervention that supports my view. My hon. Friend is well aware of my interest in tourism. I share his optimism that the north-west will benefit in that and in other respects from a successful bid by Manchester.
I want to discuss where resources from sport will come from in future. My hon. Friend the Minister recently told the House that the proceeds of the national lottery that go to sport should be used more for capital projects than for revenue support. I agree with that in principle, as we do not want the lottery to shore up the costs of a whole series of white elephants. However, a case can be made for the short-term investment of lottery proceeds in the training of Olympic competitors, especially through the Sports Aid Foundation, to enable our elite sports men and women to reach their full potential in Atlanta and, perhaps, in Manchester.
Sporting facilities needed for training are generally good, but athletes need time to train. That means resources for scholarships or a top up for part-time work. We could help with that if the lottery's proceeds could be suitably directed to the necessary support for success.

Mr. John Bowls: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the facilities for excellence. Does he agree that the base for sport depends on the very basic availability of land, especially playing fields? In the past,

that has been threatened by local authorities that have sold playing fields. That practice must be stopped—[Interruption.] I was not seeking to be controversial, but now I shall be. That base for sport was also threatened by the former Greater London council and Inner London education authority, which consistently opposed any team sport. As a consequence, sport in London suffered and had to be rescued by organisations such as the London Community Cricket Association.

Mr. Coombs: I am beginning to think that if I give way again, nothing in my speech will sound original as I deliver it. I agree with my hon. Friend and I intend to refer to those matters in a few moments. However, I shall try not to repeat what he said in his excellent and helpful intervention.
Before I leave the subject of Olympic sports, I want to raise two specific points with my hon. Friend the Minister. The Government promised legislation to safeguard the British Olympic Association's use of the Olympic rings symbol for sponsorship and other purposes. Can my hon. Friend say when that legislation will be ready and when the House will have a chance to consider it, because it is of great importance in the lead-up to the next Olympic games in 1996?
Will my hon. Friend also listen to a special plea from the sport of ice skating? Mention of John Curry, Robin Cousins, Jayne Torville and Christopher Dean reminds us that we can compete at the highest level—but our facilities in that sport are so limited that our elite competitors must train in the middle of the night, when ice rinks are not used by casual, amateur skaters. Is my hon. Friend prepared to unfreeze the sources from the lottery to correct that situation? I appreciate that it will not be his decision, but I have no doubt that he has influence in that sphere, as in many others. I hope that he will exert it.
Ice skating is one sport which attracts enthusiastic beginners of all ages, some of whom go on to be champions. Another is swimming. We have enjoyed great success with swimming over the years. One thinks of Duncan Goodhew, Sharon Davies, and many others. However, too many children in this country never learn to swim and, appallingly, on average two children drown every week.
The efforts of the Royal Life Saving Society, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English School Sport Association have for several years been directed at a campaign for swimming in schools. In September, the Royal Life Saving Society will place definitive water safety and swimming resource materials in every school in the land. Young people must learn water safety skills in primary schools. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to endorse that campaign and to impress on the Department for Education the need to support swimming with national curriculum time and the necessary resources.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I accept that swimming education is necessary and should be encouraged. Can the hon. Gentleman say why facilities are being reduced so dramatically in inner-city areas such as my own, where local authorities have no funds to provide them?

Mr. Coombs: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that I am speaking up today for sport. I am not here to defend a reduction in swimming facilities; in fact, I want to see them expanded. If the right hon.


Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will take up that point, which is crucial for the safety of our young people.
On 13 April, the Government published their own water sports safety review. They are aware of the issues, but I want them to be aware also that they should channel resources to ensure that water safety can be a reality for all our children in future years.
Swimming is one of the best forms of exercise. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members participate in it, yet the national picture in this country is unhappy and unhealthy. The latest national fitness survey estimated that 70 per cent. of men and 91 per cent. of women do not take sufficient exercise for a healthy life style. A recent study by Exeter university concluded that 13 per cent. of boys and 10 per cent. of girls were overweight while at school—partly through lack of exercise. Physical education is, of course, part of the national curriculum, but we need a commitment from the Department for Education to a minimum of two hours physical education a week if sufficient physical exercise is to be available to young people.
Resources and facilities are vital to physical education in schools, and no sport has been more seriously affected —at the level of popular participation—by a lack of resources, than cricket. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who has now left the Chamber —mentioned cricket, and I wish to say a little about that fine sport.
The problem is not so much the selling off of playing fields as the fact that they were under-used and not properly maintained when they still existed. That, I fear, is part of the reason why they were sold off. According to a recent report by the National Cricket Association, 97 per cent. of those asked said that the lack of cricket in schools was the main reason why the game had lost much of its appeal and its following.
Gone are the days when tens of thousands flocked to county grounds on a Saturday to watch the first day of a championship match. Now, those who bother to go will see—if they are lucky—the third day of a four-day game, played on a flat, covered wicket, in which, all too often, the bat dominates the ball to an unacceptable degree. Cricket lovers are deeply concerned about England's lack of success in India and Sri Lanka; by the endless experiments with coloured clothing and white balls; and by the most curious selection policies that I can remember in my 40 years as a cricket lover.
Would it be asking too much for us to be allowed to watch David Gower coming out to bat for England against Australia at Lord's one month from today, preferably—if a Hampshire supporter may be permitted to say this—to join Robin Smith in a productive partnership of power and elegance?

Mr. John Carlisle: May I help my hon. Friend to select the England side? This is relevant to both the debate and the Front Bench. Might it be an idea to adopt the Indian system whereby the selectors have two Government nominees with voting rights on the board? I would certain nominate my hon. Friend as one, and possibly the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) as the other. We might then have a more balanced side.

Mr. Coombs: The all-party cricket group, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), is already beginning to influence the English selection process. It recently invited Mr. Ted Dexter to one of its meetings. I am not sure whether Mr. Dexter took away all our thoughts; we shall see when the team is chosen for the first test next month.
Let us be serious. Only if the game of cricket is enabled to flourish in our schools will we see its best aspects—the things that we all love—in future. I believe that time is running out for the recovery of the game we love.
I wish that time allowed me to do more than merely mention a range of other sports; I hope that other hon. Members will be able to say more about them. I should like to speak in more detail of our joy at Britain's having a world heavyweight boxing champion for the first time this century—I am sure that we all congratulate Lennox Lewis on his achievement. I wish that I could say more about the dominance of world golf by a British golfer, Nick Faldo; about the contribution of Widnes and Wigan to the game of rugby league in this country—following Saturday's game, perhaps we should mention St. Helens as well; and about the excellent family entertainment which speedway provides in my constituency and many others.
I should also like to refer to the Government's recent rescue of the British horseracing industry, in the nick of time. Perhaps at least one hon. Member will be tempted to speak of the problems of greyhound racing, and the question of evening off-track betting shop opening.
Let me address myself instead to the question of the administration of British sport and the resources available to it. In October this year, the new Sports Commission will begin its work, and the English Sports Council will come into existence to mirror those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. To most people, that sounds a sensible arrangement, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that it should not, and must not, be allowed to be the reason for more bureaucracy and, hence, for the increased use of resources that would otherwise go directly into sport.
It worries me that, in a recent parliamentary answer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage told the House that, whereas the Arts Council spends 3·6 per cent. of its grant in aid on administration, the Sports Council spends 37 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his reply.
I should not want the House to be misled by my reference to those facts. I am well aware of the wide range of excellent services to sport provided by the Sports Council. Nevertheless, we should concentrate on those administration costs for a moment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us. Clearly, we do not need more bureaucracy in sport. We need resources directed at our sportsmen and sportswomen out of the £50 million that the Government give to the Sports Council every year.
By contrast, the new Foundation for Sport and the Arts spends only 2 per cent. of its budget on administration. The foundation has already disbursed more than £100 million in donations and, with the Football Trust, is making excellent use of the money released by the reduction in the pools betting duty that the Chancellor has initiated. The pools companies deserve our congratulations, too, on the way in which they have supported the foundation.
It is clear that the private sector as a whole has a major role to play in the funding of sports projects. It is vital, therefore that the expertise of leisure industry companies such as First Leisure is used in the planning of commercially sound joint ventures. In that context, my hon. Friend the Minister may care to note the view of the leisure companies that compulsory competitive tendering, although it is a step in the right direction, is not delivering the level of investment for which we had all hoped.
Some 84 per cent. of contracts in local government are won in house. That may well mean sharper management in many cases, but it does not bring in the expertise of the private sector or the investment that is so badly needed to improve facilities owned by local authorities. The right hon. Member for Salford, East referred to swimming facilities, but there are many other instances in which more resources and investment are badly needed.
If the proceeds of the national lottery are to go to local authorities to any degree or if capital receipts are to be used for sports projects, I believe that private sector expertise will be needed to ensure that those funds are used for the benefit of council tax payers, and not at open-ended cost to them.
I mentioned the Football Trust, and I want to conclude with a look at the state of our premier spectator sport. There is much to celebrate—not least England's superb effort in the world cup, not only in reaching the semi-finals but in winning the fair play award. Thanks in large part to the legislation introduced by the Government to control the consumption of alcohol, crowd behaviour has improved so significantly that the pitch invasion at Manchester City on 7 March stands out as an unusual occurrence, and the tragedies of Hillsborough and Heysel seem a very long time ago.
The recommendation of the Taylor report that football stadiums should provide only seating accommodation has been modified in respect of the two lower divisions, some of whose clubs would probably have been bankrupted by that requirement. But that threat still hangs over some first division clubs whose average attendances are lower than the best of those in the second division. On 3 May, Burnley and Rotherham, in the second division, had larger gates than Brentford, Charlton and Oxford in the first. Is my hon. Friend prepared to think again about the possibility of keeping some standing accommodation for clubs with average attendances over the season below 10,000—provided, of course, that the Football Licensing Authority considers that a club can meet safety requirements in respect of that standing accommodation?
My own club, Swindon Town, would very much like to keep its Stratton bank stand as standing accommodation even though it is now competing for a place in the Premier League. Without it, the ground's capacity would be reduced in 1994 from 19,000 to 14,000, even though the Football Trust has put up 60 per cent. of the cost of a new south stand.
There are many fans who still prefer to stand and who, I believe, can be trusted today to behave themselves. Yesterday's play-off game at Swindon against Tranmere Rovers was watched, without incident, by a crowd of 14,000, of whom 4,000 were standing. I hope that my hon. Friend will also be my flexible friend in this matter and

give careful consideration to a further change in the regulations to ensure that those who wish to stand at football matches can, within reason, be allowed to do so.
In the meantime, the ability of many clubs to improve their grounds depends on the ability of the Football Trust to support them. Will my hon. Friend set minds at rest and reaffirm the extension of the reduction of 2·5 per cent. of pools betting duty on which the Football Trust is obviously entirely dependent?
The passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill led to some welcome amendments, designed to ensure that the pools companies were less adversely affected than they had feared. I thank my hon. Friend for the understanding that he has shown in such matters. Perhaps he will say whether he is now prepared to consider further the possibility of allowing the pools companies equal rights to advertise on television and radio as will be afforded to the national lottery? He will appreciate that there is a risk that the Football Trust and football clubs could be the losers if the playing field is not level.
The motion congratulates the Government on "its continuing recognition" of the role of sport. I should mention in particular the £3 million a year grant to Sportsmatch, the business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport, which is evidence of the Government's commitment to sport, as is the securing of international competitions such as the world gymnasium championships last month and the European football championships, which will come to England in 1996.
I believe, and I hope that the House believes, that we have very much to be proud of in British sport, but there is still very much to achieve in order to enhance the nation's life and its prestige abroad.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on breaking new ground by tabling a motion on sport. It is generally Labour Members who initiate such debates, and it is good to see that tradition being broken. In addition to the congratulations—with which I concur —that the hon. Gentleman passed on to individual athletes, the British Lions and many more, I was surprised that he did not congratulate his own team, Swindon Town, on winning in the play-offs yesterday. I am sure that he would wish to rectify that omission.
It is thanks to the hon. Gentleman that I am once again at the Dispatch Box and able to lock horns with the Minister to discuss the general state of sport in Britain. I cannot, however, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his wording of the motion. He clearly has a lot to learn about the state of sport in this country, and I suspect that the wording for the motion came from the Minister's own Department.
Before discussing that motion in detail, I am sure that the House will realise the importance that a successful national lottery could have for sport, and we all look to the Minister to ensure that sport gets a fair and honest deal. I must refer, however, to the pathetic charade that those of us concerned with the lottery have had to endure with the secrecy surrounding the GAH group report, which the Minister commissioned to assist the Government's thinking before the National Lottery etc. Bill was drafted. The Minister is aware of last week's scandalous revelation that the GAH group is now demanding £695 plus value


added tax for its own commercial report on the lottery —a report which any reasonable person would suspect is largely the product of work carried out at the taxpayer's expense. I received a letter from the Minister this morning informing me that in his view the GAH group commercial report
bears no direct relation to the work we commissioned.
I am sure that the Minister was extremely careful in the choice of his words as he will have had the opportunity, as I have, to read a copy of the commercial report and to compare it with the terms of reference for the Government report given by his Department to the GAH group, which he set out in a parliamentary answer to me on 21.January.
I shall not dwell on the report today, but I shall be writing to the Minister in great detail to show him where I think that his assessment of the situation is wrong. However, he may wish to reflect on one aspect in advance of receiving my letter. Without using information gained as a result of its publicly funded work behind the scenes with his Department, how could the GAH group possibly produce a report providing information on the following: the criteria to be used to select the lottery contractor, the value of the contracts, the number of retailers and the work required in the preparation of the tender document?
There is one matter on which the Minister must put the House's mind at rest today. Has he made inquiries to ensure that the commercial report is the full extent to which the GAH group is seeking to profit from its access to privileged information and that the company is not working for any companies seeking to gain contracts for the lottery? I hope that the Minister will refer to that when he makes his contribution to the debate.
Before we leave the subject of the national lottery, the Minister will recall an interesting debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) about certain discriminatory practices exercised by the Rugby Football Union against the British Amateur Rugby League Association. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that he and other hon. Members will wish to use this opportunity to pursue that vital issue. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give a more forthright reply than he was able to on Report.
We are discussing not only the national lottery, but the glut of issues and challenges facing the Minister and his as yet fledgling Department in relation to sport. He will know by now that sport has had enough of being treated as a political outcast by Tory Governments and is demanding the respect that it undoubtedly deserves. Perhaps I am being unkind to the Minister, because he is without doubt an improvement on his predecessor, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).
However, I must inform the Minister that, if he wishes to make his mark in sport, he must get to grips with the mandarins and with his own civil servants who seem incapable of tackling the needs of sport in this country. The Minister must by now be aware that, if sport is to prosper, he must do everything in his power to prevent his Department becoming a mere conduit through which vital aspects of policy are passed to other Departments. If he will allow me, I shall give an illustration of the damage that can ensue when he fails to give a lead to the Government on sport. He must bang some ministerial heads together to get results for our sportsmen and women and for spectators.
The Minister will be aware that one of the very few concrete actions to come from the review of sports policy undertaken by his predecessor was the publication for consultation of a draft letter—not an actual letter—about school playing fields, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swindon. The Minister's predecessor sent the draft letter for comment from local authority organisations on 19 December 1991–17 months ago.
In a parliamentary written answer to me only four days ago, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), informed me that within 61 days responses had been received from all but one organisation—the Tory-dominated London Boroughs Association. Much to the Minister's embarrassment, I am sure, his hon. Friend went on to tell me that the LBA was sent a further copy of the letter and then had to be chased on the telephone before it informed the Government that it was not bothering to reply.
The Minister might like to comment on the commitment to sport in the capital of his political friends in the Tory-dominated LBA or, more to the point, their lack of commitment, which knocks the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis).

Mr. John Bowis: I thought that the proof of the pudding was in the eating. If the hon. Gentleman were to come to the London borough of Wandsworth, he would see the "Sport for Youth" campaign which was initiated last year and which has been run by Wandsworth council. Its aim is to put back into the curriculum the sporting opportunities for young people which were woefully absent when the Inner London education authority was responsible.

Mr. Pendry: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who is merely plugging a particular borough and not the London Boroughs Association, to which I was referring.
Since the responses to the draft letter were received by the Department for Education more than 14 months ago, the Government have done nothing but sit on their hands. If the Minister is to have any credibility in sport, he must take this opportunity to apologise for the shameful lack of effort by his predecessor and promise the House that firm and decisive action will be taken without delay to halt the scandalous sale of those precious sporting assets—our school playing fields—to which the hon. Member for Swindon referred. I, and the House, look forward to that promise.
I must assure the Minister that his honeymoon period is well and truly over. We gave him an extended honeymoon, but it is now time he tackled the lack of concerted action and the unfulfilled promises which remain the hallmark of the Government's attitude to sport. For instance, I am sure that he will agree that it is high time he took a more positive approach to the problems facing our national game of football—a matter also mentioned by the hon. Member for Swindon.
My views on soccer are pretty well documented and, to be fair, I must acknowledge the positive attitude to football displayed by the Minister's previous boss, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). Unfortunately, since the right hon. and learned Member left his post, football has seen precious little action from


the Minister's Department or any other Department. Indeed, there has been a distinct lack of leadership exercised by the Minister towards out national game.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is the chairman of the all-party football committee, has asked me to apologise for his not being here, as Sheffield Wednesday is reorganising the ticket allocation for the replay on Thursday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is not only chairman of the all-party cricket committee but happens also to be vice-chairman of the all-party football committee—a versatile man—and he will no doubt try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If evidence of the lack of leadership is required, I mention the deafening silence from Ministers following the recent pitch invasions on grounds throughout the country —most recently at Exeter City, where the referee was assaulted. The pitch invasion at Manchester City last March was especially significant because nearly two thirds of the fans came from the £7 million new stand which was built in response to Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation for all-seater stadiums.
I do not for one minute wish to imply that such incidents reflect badly on the recommendations of the Taylor report or that we should discourage the construction of new modern stands fit for the 21st century —far from it: I want to see more of them—but the Minister will be aware that an integral part of the strategy for football which Taylor envisaged was to balance the greater freedom afforded by the removal of fences from in front of the stands with the creation of new offences to deter those who might wish to abuse that freedom and invade the pitch.
The Minister will be further aware that, following the publication of the Taylor report, I repeatedly urged the Home Secretary to heed Lord Justice Taylor's advice and get the new offences on to the statute book. That was done, albeit belatedly, with the introduction of the Football (Offences) Act 1991. What is the use of getting those offences on to the statute book if the powers thereby given to the clubs, to the police and to magistrates are not used to the full to discourage pitch invasions? Had a mere handful of the original offenders been charged under the Act, fined up to £1,000, excluded from the team's ground and had their names published in every team's programme in the early part of the season, we would not have found too many so-called fans running on to the pitch.
The Minister must see that as lack of action on his part and tell the House today that he will speak to his colleagues in the Home Office to get them to agree to issue a circular to magistrates and the police drawing attention to the provisions of the Act and pressing them to enforce it so as to prevent any recurrence of such disturbing events next season.
As the Minister is no doubt aware, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 arose out of a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee report, "Policing Football Hooliganism", which was published in February 1991. He must also recall that the throwing of missiles and the chanting of obscene and racist language was also outlawed in the Act. Can he tell the House how well he has monitored progress in that area?
The Select Committee report also recommended, in line with the Taylor report, that it should be made a specific offence to sell tickets on the day of a football match without the authority of the home club. Yet the Government saw fit to leave such a provision out of the Football (Offences) Act. Since then, I have written repeatedly to Ministers urging them to introduce legislation against ticket touts and I have had two undertakings from the Prime Minister that legislation to prohibit ticket touting will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I know that the Football Association shares my concerns and it is a disgrace that, more than three years later, nothing has been done by the Government. It is vital that legislation he introduced as soon as possible because of the mounting evidence of the problems caused by touting, both throughout the domestic calendar and at prestigious events such as the FA cup final. If the Minister saw The Mail on Sunday yesterday, he will have read Simon Greenberg's article highlighting some of the touting problems at Wembley over the weekend.
I hope that the Minister has had a chance to read the fine report by the chief trading standards officer of Liverpool city council which shows that touting has undermined segregation arrangements between supporters at every cup final between 1988 and 1992. It was estimated that, in the 1992 cup final between Liverpool and Sunderland, a minimum of 1,200 tickets were touted, resulting in fans paying up to £138,000 in excess prices. According to the report, the level of touting was in reality much higher. Many fans were understandably reluctant to reveal how much they had paid and where they purchased their tickets.
It is not just football that has fallen victim to the universally condemned action of ticket touts. In September 1990, the authorities at Wimbledon, tired of Government inactivity, took action and introduced measures designed to safeguard the position of tennis-loving fans and to minimise the black market in Wimbledon tickets.
The problem was of sufficient concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) to raise the matter last week and to ask whether the Government would consider the possibility of touting spreading to Buckingham palace, now that the decision had been taken to issue tickets in advance for the newly announced tours of the palace. The spectacle of ticket-touting spivs at the royal palace may make the Government sit up. I hope that the Minister will raise the issue with Home Office Ministers, and that they will introduce an appropriate clause, perhaps in the Criminal Justice Bill which is about to begin its Committee stage, or that he will at least support others who may wish to introduce such a clause.
The Minister's previous boss, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney, received a delegation that I took to him on the question of standing areas at football grounds —a matter touched on by his hon. Friends. I put to the then Minister the desire of football supporters organisations for safe standing areas within their grounds and, having listened to the arguments, he conceded the case for the lower divisions, but he would not go all the way with us. Some premier and first division clubs will not meet the deadline laid down for conversion of their grounds to all-seater stadiums by 1994–95 for a host of reasons—some


have planning problems with their local authorities or with the Department of the Environment—so the present Minister will need to show some flexibility.
What has also happened since the Taylor report is that the world has moved on, especially in terms of science, and even since we met the Minister's right hon. and learned Friend there have been some significant advances in safety technology as it relates to the question of standing areas at grounds. The crowd pressure monitoring system introduced by the NNC at Risley is one such example of a proven system which can be adapted to crush barriers on terracing to prevent any threat to the safety of supporters who choose to stand.
The system contains a series of sensors in a barrier which are linked to a computer which monitors the amount of pressure being exerted on the barrier at the front of the crowd. The system has been so successful that it has attracted considerable interest from Italian stadium designers and from crowd safety consultants in the United States of America. It is another example of a British invention being taken up by others but not by the British themselves.
It is clear that that system, in conjunction with the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council's guidelines on safer terracing published in March, can clearly meet the highest safety standards that the Government rightly demand. In the interests of football, will the Minister give an undertaking to look at those proposals and to reconsider the whole question of safe terracing for those clubs which are expected to meet the deadline; of the Taylor report? Better still, will he also undertake to visit Risley to see for himself—as I have done—a system which, if adopted, will please millions of football supporters?
I hope that the Minister has had the chance to read a new report produced this week by the Sports Council, "New Horizons, Sport in the 90s", which sets out an agenda for its remaining period of office. The report says clearly on page 59 that Britain is lagging behind its European partners in terms of investment in new sporting development. The Sports Council in its comparison of final Government expenditure on sport, based on the 1985 prices, with the various member states of the Council of Europe, found that with the exception of Portugal, the United Kingdom Government spent one third less on sport than other member states did.
That led the Sports Council to conclude:
Other nations have been swifter to recognise the economic benefits of sporting success, as well as its value to national prestige. They have invested heavily in new sporting developments. Overseas competitors are often surprised how relatively little financial support their sport receives in the land of its birth and how well Britain's sporting men and women perform despite this disadvantage. Other nations in Europe recognise the economic benefits of sporting success as well as its value to national prestige—indeed our overseas competitors are often surprised at how little financial support sport receives in this country".
That is why I disagree with the wording of the motion. If the hon. Member for Swindon had read that report, he might have framed the motion rather differently. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the Sports Council's comments.
The Minister's Department stands condemned as it has failed to put into practice one of the few important recommendations to come out of the review by the hon. Member for South Ribble—the proposal to reform the national structures of sport, including the creation of the United Kingdom Sports Commission and a separate

English Sports Council. The Minister will understand our desire to press for further information about the exact date at which these bodies will be established as there is widespread concern that the Government's current plans will not come to fruition by October, as previously announced.
The Minister must recognise the concerns of those who are worried about the way in which the proposals for the United Kingdom Sports Commission are turning out. The Minister must be aware that a royal charter is not the property of Government, although once it is born, it can be revoked only by Parliament. It is not a political charter and, according to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell, who knows about these things, it should not be imposed on Parliament or the sporting world in controversial circumstances, as it involves Her Majesty the Queen.
Opposition parties should already have been consulted, and as Opposition spokesman for sport I have yet to receive my official copy. Not only will the Minister offend Opposition parties, but he will offend his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland unless fuller consultation is carried out.
The bureaucratic nature of the proposals is exactly as predicted by Lord Howell when he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench at the time of the initial announcement. Because the draft charters contradict much of what the review recommended, notably the breakdown of roles between the proposed United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Pendry: Because a charter has been leaked to me. However, it is a disgrace that I have not received a copy from the Minister.
The Minister will be aware that the hon. Member for South Ribble said in his review that the United Kingdom Sports Commission should be responsible for
promoting higher standards of performance and excellence in sport at a UK level.
However, the wording in the draft charter is not "at a UK level", but for the "UK as a whole." That could lead to the interpretation that the UKSC has a responsibility for all aspects of sport in the United Kingdom causing no end of duplication and confusion between the proposed two organisations.
In short, the UKSC should be concerned with our international dimensions and the Sports Council with our national sports. The situation as it stands cannot be allowed to continue and I look forward to playing my part in the review process when the Minister has the courtesy to send me a copy of the charter.
An integral part of ensuring the success of the United Kingdom Sports Commission and the English Sports Council, whatever arrangements are arrived at for their eventual memberships and modus operandi, is securing a decent level of resources to back their efforts. In that respect, the hon. Member for Swindon has got it all wrong. We would expect the total amount given as grant aid to be more than the level of grant aid presently given to the Sports Council for Great Britain which, expressed in 1993–94 prices, has declined from £51 million in 1991 to


£49·9 million in 1991–92. Judging from the Chancellor's autumn statement, the Government do not intend to honour their pre-election promise to maintain their funding for sports and the arts.
I have received a number of complaints from leisure departments of councils throughout the country about the current capping of their budgets, which has resulted in severe restraints on their capital programmes for sport. Figures from 1992 Sports Council survey of actual budgets and past expenditure clearly show that capital expenditure by district and borough in 1992–93 has fallen to 44 per cent. of the 1989–90 level. Those figures represent a disgraceful picture, and they should be dramatically improved.
We also want the Minister to clarify his commitment given during the Committee stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill and guarantee not just the funding of capital projects for sport, to which reference has been made, but also the revenue expenditure necessary for those projects to operate effectively. The Minister must be more positive about revenue spend as it goes hand in hand with capital projects.
Already up and down the country, as a result of Government policy, we see sport being denied to thousands of people because of the lack of funding. Indeed, the situation would be much worse if local authorities had not exercised considerable ingenuity in finding ways of keeping facilities open. However, some of the means employed to do that have the effect of restricting access through reductions in opening hours, reducing quality of service or increasing prices.
I will give the Minister some graphic illustrations of that. Manchester city council, the Olympic city, has closed Victoria baths in Hathersage road. The London borough of Greenwich is in the process of transferring its leisure facilities to workers' co-operatives or trusts. Langbaurghon-Tees has reduced opening hours and transferred full-time jobs to casual staff. The London borough of Haringey has reduced opening hours and there have been reductions in access to its dual use centres. Dudley metropolitan borough council has had to close a demonstration project called "The Fitness Factor" which it was running in co-operation with the Sports Council.
There are many more examples, in Peterborough, Basildon, Brentwood, Braintree and Castle Point. This has nothing to do with Government action in relation to local authorities which is forcing those sports facilities to become if not white elephants, then at least part-time working facilities.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that only two years ago I was a councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham. We had exactly the same problem of a shortage of funds and an inability to keep the swimming pools open. I went to see the pools and I spoke to the staff, who were very pleasant. They explained that the pools could not be opened, purely because of the inefficiency of the local administration, and that it had nothing to do with the amount of funding provided.

Mr. Pendry: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to his hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, who

referred to local authorities which had won the in-house tendering for those facilities. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has clearly got it all wrong.
Not only does the lack of funding prevent the necessary refurbishment of aging, worn-out buildings and facilities; it also means that preventive maintenance is skimped. As a result, we are storing up grave problems for the future. Perhaps the Minister can give local authorities and others the assurances that they seek in that important area.
I referred a little while ago to Manchester as the Olympic city, and we all hope that that will be the case in the year 2000. Perhaps the Minister will comment on reports—a point to which the hon. Member for Swindon referred—that in a recent speech to Manchester business men the Prime Minister withdrew a vital paragraph from his proposed text in which he was going to give his clear commitment to attending this autumn's Olympic committee meeting in Monte Carlo to lead Britain's efforts.
The Minister must give some reassurance today about that because there are those—including, perhaps, the hon. Member for Swindon—who believe that the Prime Minister withdrew that commitment because he has realised too late that he cannot honour the spending promises that he made towards the Olympic bid and is desperately trying to get away from those commitments.

Mr. Key: indicated dissent.

Mr. Pendry: If that is not the case, the Minister can tell us today, but that is the view widely held in the sporting world.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pendry: No, I will not.
If the Minister moved in the circles of the sporting world, he might be aware of that view. He can end that worry once and for all by telling the House that the Government's financial commitment to the games will be honoured in full from existing spending programmes and without recourse to a raid on the millennium fund, which would fall foul of the additionality pledges made by the Secretary of State on Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill.
I have given the Minister a shopping list of tasks on which I believe he should be taking action, and I do not wish to overburden him, but there is one area in which I believe he is duty bound to notch up a victory. I refer to one of the country's most popular participatory sports —angling.
The Minister may not be aware that the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, established in the 1991 Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has refused to give a single penny to angling and has constantly chopped and changed its reason for that. On 13 January, the secretary of the foundation, Mr. Grattan Endicott, wrote to Ken Ball, the president of the National Federation of Anglers, telling him that the foundation would not give money to angling because the trustees' policy is
not to grant-aid activities that directly inflict pain or harm on members of the animal world.
Once the NFA had written to the foundation conclusively demonstrating that angling does no such thing, the foundation accepted those arguments. However, in a further letter on 24 February, the foundation came up


with the astonishing comment that, even though the impending revision of the trust deed might indeed render angling eligible for funding,
the president of the Board of Trustees would not contemplate giving support to angling even if it were allowable.
The Minister must agree that the antipathy that that comment shows towards Britain's millions of anglers is staggering. Perhaps that is why, in a third letter on 5 April, the foundation attempted to back-track and came up with yet another excuse for denying angling any aid. It said:
angling is not athletic and funds would not stretch to such grants.
Surely the Minister will agree that it is deeply regrettable that out of an annual budget of £60 million the foundation feels that it cannot find a single penny for one of the country's most popular sports. As the Minister is the custodian of sport—and of that sport—in this House, he must do something about that. He must show today that he has the stomach to fight on behalf of the millions of anglers who look to him for a lead.

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pendry: No, I am about to finish and many hon. Members wish to participate in this debate.
I hope that the Minister will write to the foundation and ask it to reconsider its decision to deny angling access to the funds made available for all sport by the Chancellor. Furthermore, will he agree to accept a delegation from me and the National Federation of Anglers?

Mr. Key: Not another one!

Mr. Pendry: It is true that I keep the Minister working. It is time that he recognised that he will receive a lot more requests for meetings. Obviously, there are many other issues that must wait for another occasion. I have no doubt that other Labour Members will raise issues to which I would dearly love to refer, but time does not permit me to do so.
I conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Swindon. The terms of his motion did not reflect the content of his speech, which was far more relevant to this debate on sport than the words of the motion. What are words, after all? The main thing is that he gave a good speech. The Minister should reply not only to the points that I have made and to those of the hon. Member for Swindon, but to the other points that will be made as the debate proceeds.

Mr. John Carlisle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. I express some regret that inevitably the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), as is his custom in such debates, gave us his usual whinge and whine that the only thing that would put sport right in the United Kingdom was funding and money. I wonder when the hon. Gentleman will understand that the sports men and women in the United Kingdom are capable of enjoying their sports to a certain extent to their own ability. Indeed, the last thing that they want is recourse to national or, indeed, local government funds.
There are many excellent organisations throughout the United Kingdom which the hon. Gentleman inevitably forgot to mention as he went down his cascading road of

worrying about the Government and the extent of their involvement. It is ironic that the Government should be blamed for pitch invasions during the coming season, when I recall that some years ago pitch invasions were a scourge of football in the United Kingdom. Every opportunity that was given to the hon. Gentleman to jump up and oppose various legislation introduced by the Government in the ensuing argument was remarkable. He spent many a long hour castigating the Government on the various measures, both in the Committee Rooms and on the Floor of the House.
However, we have got used to the hon. Gentleman's attitude. All I can say is that, obviously, his tenure on the Front Bench will not be as long as that of his noble predecessor.

Mr. Pendry: Can the hon. Gentleman give me one or possibly two examples of what he means?

Mr. Carlisle: Of course. The hon. Gentleman did not agree with some aspects of the Football Spectators Bill—he kept us in Committee for many a long hour. I think that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was also on that Committee. Time and again, when the Government were wrestling with an enormous problem at that time, we had little co-operation from Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde.
It is nice to see my hon. Friend the Minister back here after his weekend sortie to Cannes for the film festival. We were disappointed that he did not—this is no aspersion on those in the Public Gallery—bring back any of the bimbos who were apparently trying to avoid him. Perhaps his speech will enlighten us as to what sport he found at the film festival. He has been a sterling champion of sport in the short time that he has been in that office, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. We look forward to the Minister's contribution this afternoon.
I was perhaps a teeny bit disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon did not mention that sporting organisation which held its annual general meeting last week—the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The president of that council is his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who perhaps should be mentioned more often in the House. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a speech at the end of the annual general meeting. I was pleased to hear him say that lines of communication with that excellent organisation were being not simply reopened but endorsed by Her Majesty's Government and the Department of National Heritage.
That must be welcomed, because there is a history of spats, including legal spats, between the Sports Council, which has been very much a Government-funded organisation, and the CCPR. It is good to see the olive branch being extended by my right hon. Friend, and I hope that that will continue.
Most hon. Members, especially Labour Members—I must give a bouquet to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who has been a great champion of the CCPR —must understand the breadth of that organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon talked about the broadest base of sport and the number of many and varied organisations which are either within the membership of the CCPR or which take an active part in its affairs—for example, the Organisation for British Blind Sport, the


Church Lads and Church Girls Brigade and the Spastics Society, as well as the British Darts Organisation, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Organisation and the National Rounders Association.
The voices of a broad band of organisations are often not heard, because they are not attractive for sponsorship, television coverage, or perhaps political activity. That is why I should like to pay tribute to those organisations for the work they do in representing all those minor sports.

Mr. Brandreth: I simply endorse the tribute that my hon. Friend is paying to the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which encompasses the whole breadth of sport and recreation. I also underline his point about the new sense of co-operation between the CCPR and the Sports Council. That co-operation was recently exemplified by their playing pitch strategy. In the past, they produced documents which may have been in conflict: they are now producing strategies in partnership for the good of sport throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Carlisle: The House should listen to the authority that my hon. Friend brings to this subject. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done for the Playing Fields Association. Indeed, that aspect of the CCPR's work must be applauded—reference has already been made to it. The campaign for saving our playing fields, which received support from hon. Members on both sides of the House —contrary to what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said—attracted enormous concern and some sympathy. The loss of playing fields is one of the various cudgels on which the CCPR has advised hon. Members in the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is right to say that, if we are moving down the road of more co-operation, it must be good.
Another subject in which the CCPR is involved—my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon referred to this—is the basis of rating. I know that there will always be an argument as to whether local authorities should have the opportunity to grant some 75 per cent. relief. Credit must be given to the Government for giving local authorities that opportunity. It is partly due to the CCPR that the rating system has been examined.
There was some disappointment with the review of my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor—it is known as the Atkins review—because the CCPR got only a passing mention at the end of the report. As we look with perhaps some uncertainty, which is expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the formation of the United Kingdom Sports Commission, one hopes that the CCPR will play a fuller part, in co-operation with the commission.
Inevitably, debates of this nature tend to focus on the funding of sport. It would be somewhat churlish if that were avoided, having expressed the sentiments that I did at the beginning of my speech. The question will always be whether money is available and, indeed, where that money will come from. I have always believed, as do many Conservative Members, that much of the funding for sport must come from within the sport itself. It must be said that some of the major sports, especially rugby union and tennis, are high earners in their own right.
It is true to say that rugby union is a net contributor to the Treasury, rather than a net taker. One must take one's hat off to the Rugby Union and, indeed, to the Scottish Rugby Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, because they have stood on their own feet—they have had recourse to public funds only in a minor way. They have got their house in order, and their sport is popular. Contrary to popular opinion, it is still an amateur sport—[Laughter.] I thought that I would get that reaction from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) should contain himself for a moment.
I would be the first to express some concern, even after the excellent speech by Mr. Dudley Wood to the all-party rugby league committee the other day, that rugby union must watch for the professionalism that is creeping in. It is not for me to get into an argument with the rugby union. Certainly, the matter may be raised later.
However, I must say to the Rugby Union that many of us who represent some of the junior clubs and, indeed, some of the junior so-called first-class clubs, are becoming increasingly worried that those in the top division are beginning to attract players by means which might be considered to be professional. It is true that such players are a tiny minority and that the practice does not filter down all the way to the junior clubs, as it does in association football. In football, even village sides pay professionals to play for them. However, some warning must be given to rugby union, not from the House but from fellow rugby union players. It must be told that many people are concerned about the way things are going. One hopes that rugby union will address those difficulties.
One regrets the passing of the true amateur. This year, the All England tennis club will provide £303,000 as the first prize for the men's singles winner. That is an enormous amount of money in anyone's book for the winner of the prestigious Wimbledon championship. It is certainly the championship of the world. The reasons given are that other countries offer similar prizes and that the exchange rate has fallen. It is not for me to criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this debate. Lower exchange rates inevitably mean that the prize money must increase.
One must ask whether it is right that £303,000 should go to one player when tennis, especially for junior and school players, is crying out for funds. I should like to see some of the highly paid professional sportsmen who give us such enormous entertainment give something back. They obviously give something back in the form of taxation, but I should like to see them participate actively in training and coaching youngsters as they approach the end of their careers.
I welcome the formation of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the excellent work of Tim Rice and his team. Cash is now coming back to worthy causes. The other day, some money was made available for a girls' rugby union centre in my constituency. I cannot say that I find it a pleasing sight to see women playing rugby.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Why?

Mr. Carlisle: It is just a male prejudice.
The girls are enthusiastic, and they have been encouraged. Money has been made available to them by the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, which is another initiative taken by the Government in consultation with the CCPR and others. Again, that is to be welcomed.
I also welcome the formation of the Football Trust, which puts money back into the game from the pools. Like Opposition Members, I welcome the Government's change of heart on the pools and the national lottery. I am delighted that there will now be a much more level playing field for the pools and the lottery. For example, the pools will now be able to enjoy roll-over prizes and so on.
The national lottery will obviously dominate the sports debate in the next few years. It is perhaps regrettable that, although funds were originally to be allocated in thirds, we have added another two categories—charities and the millennium fund. That will inevitably reduce the amount of money that goes to sport.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's estimate of some £150 million in the first year of the national lottery will be a serious underestimate. I believe that the national lottery will catch the imagination of the public. In that soft form of gambling, people will feel in their hearts that they are supporting sport. I hope that, as the take increases, funds from the national lottery will replace the money given by the taxpayer. I am aware that the Government do not necessarily agree with that.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about continental stadiums and so on. It would be nice if we could enjoy such facilities, but they should not necessarily all be provided at the taxpayer's expense. I hope that the national lottery will begin to yield enough money to enable us to take sport out of the political argument for local authorities and national Government.
Other funding has inevitably come from sponsorship. I give credit to the CCPR for forming the Institute of Sports Sponsorship under the Presidency of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. I also give credit to the Government for going ahead with the Sportsmatch scheme, which arose directly out of the institute. The pound-for-pound basis must be the way forward. We hope that the £3 million earmarked at this stage will be increased as the scheme becomes more popular. I give credit to my hon. Friend the Minister for setting up that institution.
I also give credit to the Institute of Professional Sport, which helps professional sportsmen who have fallen on hard times for various reasons—often as a result of injury. Mr. Garth Crooks and others are doing excellent work to help those who can very easily become the forgotten men of sport. Most of us who are involved in sport know how quickly a sportsman or woman can be forgotten by the public and by those who used to support them.
My concluding remark on funding and sponsorship is on the touchy subject of tobacco sponsorship. It probably has greater cross-party support than many hon. Members are willing to accept. I am glad that the Opposition have not included total opposition to the funding of sport by the tobacco companies as part of their policies.
Most of us understand the medical dangers of smoking, and also that the Government have discouraged tobacco sponsorship in the past few years with the two voluntary agreements of 1977 and 1986. In the past decade, smoking has been reduced by some 20 per cent. I believe that such sponsorship must continue to be available to sports, should they want it. We live in a free country where smoking is a legitimate pastime, and long may it remain so. I do not smoke—it is a filthy habit—but I hope that others will continue to smoke and, by paying their taxes, keep my tax bill down.
On a more serious note, the tobacco companies have a substantial part to play in sport, not only in glamour

sports such as cricket, motor racing and golf, but where money has, if I may use the phrase, filtered down to junior and other sports. If the Government banned the sponsorship and advertising of sport by the tobacco companies—I know that that has been mooted, not just in this place but in some higher echelons and even Downing street—it would be a sad day for sport. The substantial funding that comes from genuine people who want to help sport—and, admittedly, to sell their product—would be lost and the great institutions and events that have marked our sporting prowess over the past few years would also lose.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon on his excellent motion. If he had not moved it, it would certainly have been in my mind to do so, and I would have been more congratulatory of this excellent Government. At least we are doing something right, and that is the Government's policy for sport and recreation.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I congratulate the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on introducing the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, his speech was much sharper than the motion on the Order Paper. That often happens, as hon. Members are aware, and we have covered a wide area this afternoon.
I went to my constituency of Salford yesterday to see the beginning of Manchester United's victory parade. It started in Salford and went round the city in pouring rain. Thousands of people, many of them young, were out on the streets. Those young people were there to praise and congratulate the team. Many were participants in sport, but not enough.
The facilities in inner city areas have been dramatically reduced. As a consequence, we have to face the fact that sport has a part to play in the problems that exist in constituencies such as mine—youth unemployment and crime. If young unemployed people had something to do —such as sport—they would not become involved in such undersirable activities. Swimming has been mentioned in the debate. Councils in inner-city areas find it virtually impossible to maintain swimming pools because they are uneconomic and cannot be run at a profit. The councils need funds to do so. Those are examples of the problems faced.
In inner-city areas such as mine where land, particularly building land, is scarce, local authorities are forced to sell playing fields. When they do so, it means that those facilities have gone for ever—school playing fields no longer exist because they have been built on. We have recently heard much about the problems with the curriculum and teachers, who are giving up less and less of their spare time at the evenings and weekends to train and coach young people in sport. It is essential to have sports facilities and training if we want our society to be healthy.
The hon. Member for Swindon talked about excellence in sport, and named many of the sports people in the United Kingdom with good records. We applaud them, but the top footballers, cricketers and runners are in the minority in our society. The base must be strengthened. Unfortunately, the base has been weakened.
I was vice-chairman of the all-party football committee and am also chairman of the cricket committee. I asked a


question of the Secretary of State for National Heritage about the Sports Council's provisions for cricket and young people. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The Sports Council is providing £130,000 per year for 1992–93 and 1993–94 to enable the National Cricket Association to employ 10 part-time regional cricket development officers, one of whose tasks is to promote links between schools and local cricket clubs. The council also gives £16,000 a year to the English Schools Cricket Association. In addition, three awards totalling £117,000 have already been made by our new Sportsmatch scheme to projects which will benefit youth cricket." — [Official Report, 10 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 330.]
Such a policy is worthy, but it represents peanuts. Our national sport needs much more funding than it is receiving at present.
Reference has been made to the Sports Council and the national lottery. The problem is that the Sports Council spreads its net widely. Therefore, if we are not careful, sports such as the national game of soccer, as well as cricket, could lose out against other activities. They will particularly do so if sport is to be linked—as it apparently will be—to the national lottery. Funds must be provided through the state for the provision of sports facilities. Sport is one of the major activities in our society, and leads to a healthier and happier nation. We have a responsibility not merely to say that it is somebody else's job, but to tell the electorate that we shall allocate funds to provide sports facilities.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an effective way of making a little money go a long way would be to help many of the voluntary clubs, which exist in a great network up and down the country, to extend their facilities for coaching young people? The facilities exist, but are under-utilised, and topping up the finances a little might help to bring many people into a system that already exists.

Mr. Orme: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The facilities exist, and people must be encouraged to use them. I was present at a Cricket Council meeting only last week where coaching and involving young people in cricket was the paramount subject in the discussion. It is possible that pupils at public schools and grammar schools are being taught cricket, but such skills are not being developed at secondary schools in inner-city areas such as those that I and many of my hon. Friends represent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke of facilities and the implementation of some of the proposals in Lord Taylor's report. I listened to what my hon. Friend said about standing room at some grounds, and the difficulties that many clubs face in providing the necessary facilities. The Minister must consider that issue seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde also mentioned ticket touts; that problem exists not just in soccer but in all sports, the theatre and wherever there are shortages of tickets. I know that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) once described ticket touting as market forces at their best. However, one would not say that if one was outside some of the football grounds. The Taylor report means that football grounds are to be reduced in size. A ground such as Manchester United's originally held 60,000 or 70,000. When the all-seater provisions are completed next year, it will hold only just

over 40,000. Many other clubs will face a similar reduction in size, and the pressure for tickets will become greater and greater. If action is not taken, we shall have a recipe for trouble and danger.
Lord Taylor says something should be done about the problem, and he asked for legislation—I think that the Minister has ducked the issue and I do not know why. If we were to take action, I think that he would have the support of the sport and people. Ticket touts who exploit the position, whether at Wembley, Wimbledon or theatres, benefit only the minority. Only two years ago at Wembley, I saw tickets being snatched from people's hands. The police should have the power to detain those guilty of this offence before the game until it is over. I know that the practice cannot be abolished altogether. Tickets will always be exchanged elsewhere, but it should not be allowed outside grounds.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Rugby Football Union issues tickets only through clubs, with the names of those clubs on them. If tickets are found to have been sold at increased prices later, the club in question loses its allocation. Would it not be better if association football did the same?

Mr. Orme: The sport has tried to tighten up, and we now know which clubs tickets have been allocated to, but some will always slip through the net. Much the same problem occurred this weekend at Wembley. I am all in favour of tightening up, but that is not always possible. Some form of legislation is needed.
As for pitch invasions, at Wembley stadium the other week I saw an experiment which, when implemented, will prevent people from climbing the barriers and invading the pitch. It involves a sort of moat, and a construction of metal on a firm base. Wembley hopes to introduce the system in time for the charity shield match in August.
Sometimes we are told not to worry about crowd invasions--after all, the fans of the winning team will usually be happy—but there can be difficulties when people try to stop games. We do not want a return to what happened at Hillsborough. I believe that action is needed, and the Taylor proposals should be implemented.
Support for Manchester's bid to host the Olympic games in the year 2000 is crucial. There is already widespread support for it, and the difficulties that remain can be overcome. Hosting the games will be beneficial not just for Manchester and the north-west, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. We will all thrive on, and benefit from, holding the games here.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): What an excellent debate this is turning out to be. I never doubted that it would be. It proves that when we are given the opportunity to debate sport in the House, we rise to the occasion. The subject is clearly important to many hon. Members.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on introducing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for sport and I know that his constituents at the northern end of Wiltshire are as enthusiastic about it as mine are at the southern end of the county. Of course, it is true that large numbers of our constituents believe that sport is extremely important to the quality of their lives, and they are right. It starts in schools; it is part of having


a healthy mind and a healthy body; and it continues throughout life. It is a matter of pride that we have sports that can be pursued by anyone of any age, able bodied and disabled alike.
Ever since I witnessed the remarkable achievements of our paralympic team in Barcelona last year, I have redoubled my enthusiastic support for sport for disabled people. It can enrich the quality of their lives enormously. We can all help in one way or another.
We should also pay tribute to the vast army of volunteers who make up the backbone of British sport. We should not forget the vast army of teachers on whom so much of our school sport depends, or the volunteers who spend their days taking young sportsmen and sportswomen around the country, keeping their kit clean, keeping the teams fed and watered and organising transport and teams. They are the unsung heroes of sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) rightly pointed out the overspill advantages of Manchester's Olympic bid, which the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) also welcomed. We are determined that the bid will succeed. I think that we have done all that we conceivably could so far, and we shall maintain the pressure right through until the end of September. Winning the bid will mean a great boost for the tourist industry in the north-west and throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), my habitual opponent across the Dispatch Box, took me to task for quite a lot. It is always a pleasure to see him at any time of day—sometimes we debate these matters quite late at night, too. It is always a pleasure to receive the delegations that he likes to bring to see me. We have done some good business together as a result of them.
On a note of criticism, however, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman had a single new idea to offer the House today or a single suggestion of how he would have done anything differently. He certainly asked a great string of questions, which I shall try to answer, but perhaps this just goes to show that, in the year since the Department set out on its course, we have managed to keep on a fairly even keel alongside each other in our quest to improve the quality of people's lives through sport.

Mr. Pendry: May I remind the Minister of just two of my suggestions? One was that he should go to Risley and see the development of the new standing areas in football grounds. The second was that he should get the Foundation for Sport and the Arts to give some money to anglers. There were many more suggestions, too.

Mr. Key: The point about Risley had already crossed my mind before the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, but I will certainly consider a visit during my hectic schedule. The hon. Gentleman might even get there before me and tell me about it—

Mr. Pendry: I have been there already.

Mr. Key: That is good news. We can have a chat about it over a cup of tea later. I look forward to going. As for angling, I am, as they say, coming to that.
The hon. Gentleman said that I should not be merely a conduit for information to other Departments. It is actually rather important that I do convey information to other Departments with responsibilities for sport, but the

hon. Gentleman was right to say that I should not be just a lightning conductor for this or any other subject. I shall come to his points about ticket touts later in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) made some important points—about the CCPR and about playing fields in particular.
It is of course important to play to win: that is the whole point of excellence in sport. I have discovered during the past year that it is politically correct to talk about elitism in sport—the only area of national life where that is permissible. Nevertheless, winning is not everything. There is much more to sport than just winning.
Let us get our facts straight about money going to sport from taxpayers and other sources. A lot of sport always has been and always will be entirely in the private sector, and does not depend on taxpayers' support. That is good. However, we have not been neglecting the taxpayers' interest in maintaining sport. Since 1979, the Sports Council's grant in aid has increased by 225 per cent. in cash terms and by 31 per cent. in real terms to its current level of some £50 million a year.
We must also include local authority spending, to which I shall return, and look at the new sources of finance, such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. We can even consider the way in which we have designed rate relief and, of course, we have discussed the national lottery. We are for ever questing after new sources of finance. On individual projects and facilities, we should remember that although people are concerned about the closure of swimming pools, sometimes pools are closed on purpose because it is better to have one big pool than five little pools, as Sheffield has discovered. It closed 11 to pay for its big one.
In 1981, there were just 964 indoor swimming pools in England. The number has grown rapidly and now that figure has increased by about 200. In 1981, England had 771 sports halls, but in 1992 the number had grown to 1,507—almost double. Artificial pitches were specifically mentioned in the debate. In 1981, England had just 30 such pitches, but now there are almost 300, a tenfold increase. Those who call for more such facilities should remember that the numbers have increased. I am delighted to say that that is true even for ice rinks. In 1981, there were 23, but now there are 40—almost double.
I was asked about the Department for Education's letter about playing fields. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are pressing for a response on the outcome of the consultation exercise. We attach importance to long-term school and community need being taken into account before playing fields are disposed of. We discussed that in the last sports debate, and I hope that we are nearer a conclusion.
I was asked about the Foundation for Sport and the Arts in connection with angling. We have agreed to a subsidiary third purpose being inserted in the trust deed to enable non-athletic. activities that are likely to promote or enhance physical health or excellence to be the subject of grants. That is a step forward. I am pleased at the funding of angling by the Sports Council, because I am an angler. If I ever have the time after receiving delegations organised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, I will no doubt be able to do more fishing. I have always been a fisherman and I am disappointed by the reported view of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Of course, it is a matter for the trustees, who are entirely independent of


ministerial or other imposition, and we must respect that. In the context of the new third purpose, I intend to try to establish the reasons for the foundation's attitude.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about the GAH report. As he kindly said, I wrote to him about that on 13 May following questions last Monday. As I said in that letter, the report does not represent the Government's views on the operational issues that it addresses. It will be for potential bidders to assess the extent to which the report will be of any use to them. GAH gave us an undertaking that it would not work for potential bidders. That is as far as I wish to go on that. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is clear that we have already been assured by the consultants that the report was an entirely separate document from the one that they produced for us.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: As the Minister knows, there was what might be termed a song and dance in debate on the Bill, and certainly in Committee, about the GAH report. That report is now readily available to those who are prepared to pay for it, but it was never made available to members of the Committee. What has changed so dramatically in the interim to make it now available in the public domain when it was not available before?

Mr. Key: It is because it is not the same report. There is no doubt about that. It is up to that commercial company whether it wishes to sell the information. However, I hope that it will abide by the commitments that it gave us.
I mentioned the letter about playing fields. The National Playing Fields Association and the Sports Council want to prevent the loss of recreational land and the Sports Council's grant in aid settlement from the Government for 1991–92 included some £500,000 specifically to enable the establishment of a register of recreational land. Work is currently in hand and is progressing well with the Sports Council, the NPFA and the Central Council of Physical Recreation as co-sponsor. The register should be up and running by next month, which is good news.
In addition, planning policy guidance note No. 17 emphasises the importance that the Government place on the need for recreational land and open spaces. It asks local authorities to take full account of the community's need for recreational space and to consider the long-term need for playing fields before allowing them to be developed. It also asks them to consult sporting bodies when planning for sport and recreation.
I was asked about pitch invasions. Lord Justice Taylor said that there is no panacea that will achieve total safety and cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. However, he was satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other measure. Apart from being more comfortable than someone who has to stand, a seated spectator is not jostled or swayed and is not involved in crowd surges. Those who monitor numbers know exactly how many people are in a given area in an all-seater stadium because they do not have to assess crowd density by visual impression. Seating also has distinct advantages in assisting crowd control, in conjunction with stewarding and closed circuit television.

Mr. Pendry: I think that the Minister has missed the point. The statute book contains the Football (Offences) Act 1990 which specifically relates to pitch invasion. I asked the Minister to ensure that magistrates and the police were made aware of that so that the Act can be enforced. I also said that at Manchester City's ground people invaded the pitch from the new all-seater facilities.

Mr. Key: I do not think that there will ever be a way to keep everybody off the pitch all the time. We need to understand the reasons more clearly. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Salford, East spoke about the Football (Offences) Act 1990. I propose to quote the figures, which show that the Act is working quite well. The latest figures for 1991–92 show that there were 276 arrests for running on to the pitch, 42 arrests for throwing missiles and 77 arrests for chanting racial abuse. The legislation is beginning to bite and it will continue to bite.
The issue of ticket touts is important. The right hon. Member for Salford, East was right to say that the practice is disagreeable, to put it at its mildest. There have been wide consultations in government and with those who are affected. However, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, the problem extends beyond football. He mentioned Buckingham palace, about which there was some concern.
The palace operation will take care of that problem. It is being designed by the Royal Household, which is in charge of it and has sought and been given a great deal of sound advice. The Palace Household is confident that there will not be a ticket touting problem, which would be most unpleasant and disagreeable. I confirm that the Government intend to legislate on the matter at the earliest opportunity, because we cannot side-step the problem for ever.
Safe terracing is an important topic, so I shall return to it briefly. We are consulting the Football Licensing Authority about the extent to which clubs will be required to upgrade their terracing in line with the recommendations of the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council report on safe terracing. That document was published at the end of March and it augments the advice already available to clubs in our guide to safety at sports grounds.
As to relocation and redevelopment, the all-seater requirement was not suddenly imposed out of nowhere. Clubs have been aware of it since the Government's response to the Taylor report was published in January 1990. It was accepted by the football authorities when it was first imposed. Most of the clubs that began to plan for all-seating stadiums at that time will have little difficulty in meeting the deadline. However, I recognise that some clubs face problems.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend will recall that, only a few weeks ago, he kindly received a delegation from Grimsby Town football club. He was helpful in giving us advice as to what we should do there. However, I have to advise him that we have not yet heard from the Football Licensing Authority, which I know he was contacting on our behalf. Will he put further pressure on it to get in touch with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and me, as we are expecting to meet it following the representations that he was going to make on our behalf?

Mr. Key: Yes, of course I will. We had an extremely constructive discussion with Grimsby Town football club


and the Members of Parliament concerned. My hon. Friend was at his most reasonable, but was nevertheless forceful, in pressing the case of his constituents, but I have already pointed out to him that it is a matter for the FLA. If there is to be any departure from the policy, it must be on the recommendation of the FLA to Ministers. I hope that we can ensure that my hon. Friend's problem is solved. The FLA has given clear guidelines of the circumstances in which it would be prepared to consider a relaxation of the time scale and clubs are aware of that.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned to me the problem of clubs bogged down by planning problems. The Department of the Environment issued PPG 17 in September 1991 to encourage local planning authorities to give sympathetic consideration to proposals from clubs in the light of the 1994 deadline. It is for clubs to ensure that their development proposals are realistic and sensitive to planning concerns.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde asked about new horizons. I do not accept the Sports Council's analysis of local authority expenditure. Both the current and the capital spend have been increasing: in 1986–87, the net current spend was £362 million and in 1992–93 it was £462 million. The capital spend in 1986–87 was £161 million and in 1992–93 it was £240 million. There are also, as I mentioned a little while ago, substantial new funds for sport from the Football Trust, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and, in future, the lottery. The Sports Council will have a key role in lottery distribution. We do not want to channel all the funds available for sport exclusively through the Sports Council.
I shall now comment on an important point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, who drew attention to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the annual general meeting of the Central Council of Physical Recreation last week. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate what was said then. My right hon. Friend said that the Department for National Heritage
has made substantial new proposals which assure the CCPR a stable and sound financial future and basis of representation.
He assured the CCPR that it had
nothing to fear from the restructuring, nor the terms of involvement that the Government has proposed. The CCPR has expressed its goodwill and I hope that I have made plain the Government's.
That is important and I hope that any misunderstandings can be cleared up.
As the House will know, the Government are putting in place more sensible structures for Government funding of sport. After 21 years of service to sport, the Sports Council of Great Britain is to be replaced by two new bodies. I hope that it will be helpful if I clear up a few of the misconceptions. The logic is quite simple, and has commanded support across the sporting spectrum. The current Great Britain Sports Council has never been able to fulfil, even to its own satisfaction, a wider Great Britain role on issues that cut across home country boundaries. Therefore, it has operated, and been seen, largely as a de facto Sports Council for England. The Government recognised a gap between the need and the reality.
The United Kingdom Sports Commission will meet the need. It will, be a body that argues for Britain in international sporting arenas, making sure that no one doubts our status, or fails to understand our ambitions, as a major sporting nation. It will also take the lead in

bringing together home country interests on those major strategic issues that can sensibly be addressed only at United Kingdom level. Among those I number the promotion of sport here and overseas, research, the exchange of information and expertise and the development of the facilities and specialist services—doping control, sports medicine and science—that support performance and excellence and that are most cost-effectively developed at United Kingdom level for the benefit of all.
It is not a body that will be in charge of the home country sports councils or that will have ambitions to take them over—that way lies political and administrative madness. However, the UKSC begs a big question. The Government have played their proper role, and enabled and facilitated. We have provided the framework for right-minded and forward-thinking sports people to create a launching pad for sport into the 21st century. We do not claim to have created a sporting utopia, but we have created a forum that will allow others to achieve substantial forward movement. The question is therefore whether the full range of sporting interests are ready to take advantage of the opportunity that we have provided.
The second body to be created is the Sports Council for England. That recognises the reality that the current Sports Council has inevitably been primarily an English body. England will now have its own dedicated sports council, with a role compatible with the other home country sports councils. The Sports Council for England will have a natural interest in the development of performance and excellence in England, working with the UKSC. Its principal role will be creating the conditions which allow performance and excellence to thrive: getting people of all ages into sport and active recreational pursuits and helping the young to gain basic sporting skills. In that, there is enormous continuing scope for partnership with local authorities.
Membership of both bodies will be drawn from governmental organisations and the voluntary sports sector. It will also include a good leavening of non-representative members: people from those areas of life whose skills, in planning, management, business and law are essential in shaping organisations, people who can articulate what they are about and how they are going to go about it. I am also looking to increase the number of women in membership, and for members still active in their sport. We are also still on target for 1 October for completion of that stage of the process.
I have mentioned briefly the role of local authorities in working with the new Sports Council structure. I should like to emphasise that we recognise the achievements of local authorities as enablers and providers of sports facilities, which are so important to the implementation of Sport for All. The reform of local government provides an opportunity to provide a structure that reduces bureaucracy and enables more cost-effective service delivery of sport and recreation.
I congratulate local authorities on the way in which many of them already ensure that in planning their leisure services they take account of the mutual benefits and opportunities created by looking not only at sports but at arts, enjoyment of the countryside and tourism as aspects of leisure provision rather than as discrete and competing services. This is what the Department of National Heritage is doing, and it is not over-egging it to say that some local authorities have been doing that for some time anyway.
More can be achieved and the move towards a more unitary structure will facilitate an integrated approach to leisure management and provision. Unitary authorities in what are now the English shires will bring together many aspects of sport and physical recreation with libraries and other services that are the domain of the county councils and provide a single focus for the development and funding of the performing arts.
I assure hon. Members that I well appreciate the need to ensure that in any new structure the opportunities are there, through voluntary agreement and co-operation, to provide those specialist sport and recreation services such as coaches and sports development officers that may be beyond the means of any one individual authority.
The key task of the Department of National Heritage is to provide, at the national level, a stimulus to that integrated approach by melting away some of the barriers that might previously have existed between agencies, each concerned with its own aspect of activity. To that end, we intend to host a seminar later this summer to which we will be inviting our main sponsored bodies, including the Sports Council, to examine where greater co-ordination would be of benefit at national and regional level. In turn, that will provide the springboard for a series of regional conferences to foster the necessary regional collaboration to inform resource allocation decisions across the broad area of leisure service provision, including sport.
Important as the UKSC, the sports councils and local authorities will be in shaping the future direction of British sport, they cannot succeed by themselves. The continuing health of British sport is largely dependent on their ability to manage effectively and to promote individual sports. The new structure can be made that much more effective if it works in harness with an efficient and rejuvenated voluntary sector. Indeed, the potential of the UKSC to promote performance and excellence at the United Kingdom level can be fully realised only if it is buttressed and supported by the governing bodies of sport, as well as such key independent and influential agencies as the British Olympic Association and the Sports Aid Foundation, of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) is now chairman.
It goes without saying that the best sportsmen and sportswomen deserve the best managers and administrators. Sporting success on the track depends to a significant extent on management success off it. Despite all its achievements, British sport has been justifiably criticised for neglecting the relationship between excellence in competition and excellence in administration. There are welcome signs that British sport has recognised that, to prepare itself for the 21st century, it must develop a meritocracy in which young and competent volunteers are trained, nurtured and rewarded on the basis of their talent and where the enthusiasm of volunteers can be complemented by the expertis of professionals.
Last October, I mentioned the proposed introduction of national and Scottish vocational qualifications in sport and recreation. They have now been introduced. The new qualification and occupational standards should provide a valuable framework that places people in the sport and recreation industry on a par with those in other sectors of the economy. There have been other efforts by the Sports Council, the British Olympic Association, the national

sports development centres and the British Association of National Sports Administrators to ensure that the quality of education is improved.
On the subject of local authority funding, I have referred only to the estimated outturn, but I can now inform hon. Members that provisional indications are that gross capital expenditure by local authorities in England for sport and active recreation rose from £166 million in 1986–87 to £240 million in 1992–93, although that latter figure is subject to revision. Therefore, there is increased funding for sport.
I am anxious to make progress because know that there are still many hon. Members who wish to speak. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts has been mentioned and I echo the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. Inner-city sport has also been mentioned. I take particular interest in that subject, not least as the city action team Minister responsible for Manchester and Salford.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Salford, East that inner-city sport is very important. I have visited the right hon. Gentleman's constituency many times, especially during the past two years. I was impressed by the quality of the teaching staff in the schools in his constituency—and, indeed, in other constitutencies throughout the country—and their determination to ensure that sport is an important part of the life of their schools, as well as part of the curriculum. Sportsmatch has also been a tremendous success since I launched it last November. I am sure that it will continue to be so.
Hon. Members referred to the national lottery, and much has been said on that matter in the House during the past couple of months. I hope that I have managed to answer the questions about football.
I want briefly to refer to Swindon Town football club because my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon initiated the debate. The club is renowned for playing attractive football—family football, not to put too fine a point on it. It finished fifth in the first division of the football league and therefore qualifies for the promotion play-offs for a place in the premier league next season. Swindon Town has been at the county ground since 1895. When the Taylor report was published, the ground had 5,030 seats; it now has 8,900 seats, partly due to the recent extension to the north stand. The total capacity for the ground is now 18,132. I understand that the average league attendance this season has been about 11,000—a figure which no doubt includes many of my constituents.
Swindon Town has abandoned its earlier plans to relocate to a new ground and is planning to replace, at the end of the season, the Shrivenham road stand with a new, 5,000, all-seated stand. That will cost about £1·4 million. There are also plans to seat and cover the Stratton bank stand at the end of next season, giving the ground an all-seated capacity of 20,100.
Swindon Town may face planning problems that could prevent it from meeting the 1994 deadline. As I told the House, it is for the Football Licensing Authority to decide whether there can be any moratorium. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss any further details with me, as always I shall be delighted to accommodate him.
We have had a remarkably detailed debate. It is good when hon. Members can get down to the detail rather than just shout at each other across the Chamber. We shall wish to return to many, many issues, but I want to conclude my remarks with a few words about the Manchester Olympic


bid. There is no doubt that it is the most exciting prospect for sport in Britain for many years. The Government's commitment is absolutely certain and we do not envisage any problem with funding the bid from a variety of sources.
When we discussed national lottery funds in Committee, we explored ways in which it might be appropriate for the Manchester Olympic organisation to bid for some of those funds at some stage. That might be from the millennium fund or from some other part of the lottery funds; that is not for me to decide. However, surely there is no need to rule out that possibility at this stage. I find it astonishing that some hon. Members, including some from the Manchester area, seem determined to rule out that potential source of finance.
I would not like to predict the result when the International Olympic Committee votes in Monaco on 23 September on which country will host the Olympic games in the year 2000. The Manchester bid—which, after all, is also the British bid—offers a great opportunity for Olympic celebration. It is thoroughly realistic and I still think that it will win. It certainly deserves to succeed. I look forward to decision day with great optimism.
There may be points that I have not covered during my response and I should be happy to pursue them outside the Chamber. I hope that I have answered the debate generally and the points raised in particular. I look forward to doing so on the next occasion that we debate sport. We have already had two sports debates in the past year, which is a record. I hope that we continue to reflect the sporting aspirations of all our constituents, which are so important to the quality of life of our people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Only 42 minutes remain for this debate and there are still five hon. Members wishing to catch my eye. With a little co-operation, all may be successful.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I had not intended to speak in the debate; I came only to listen. It was my understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) intended to speak about rugby league fooball. However, he was at Old Trafford yesterday and was last seen in a state of some emotional distress after Wigan was beaten—thank goodness—by St. Helens.
I must say how nice it was that Featherstone Rovers won the divisional championship. We, too, had a first yesterday, because my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) attended his first rugby league football game. He also had his education completed at Old Trafford yesterday.
This debate has been interesting and wide-ranging, but it has tended to concentrate, understandably, on soccer. The second most popular spectator sport in Britain is rugby league football. Many do not understand the importance of that sport.
Those of us who have the good fortune to come from rugby league-playing areas are concerned that many soccer-related problems have come home to rugby league clubs—which have had to pick up the tab for meeting the statutory implications of sports ground safety legislation and of the Taylor report.
Spectator safety applies to every sport, but rugby league—which has an excellent reputation as a well organised family sport that attracts big, extremely well-behaved crowds—was faced with huge bills and big problems as a consequence of problems that first arose in another sport. I hope that the Minister will address that point more so than has been the case recently.
I made a lengthy speech during the Report stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill, and I will not repeat the points that I made then, but I emphasise the concern in rugby league at the clear and blatant discrimination against many involved in that particular sport—primarily by the rugby union authorities.
The question of professionalism within rugby union was mentioned by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I agree with him that the Rugby Union's view of amateurism is looking a little like the emperor's new clothes—extremely thin. Everyone knows that, to all intents and purposes, rugby union in many areas is totally professional—much more so in many respects than rugby league. One or two of us are growing tired of that, and I hope that the Minister will address with the rugby union authorities the manner in which they treat certain people, which is somewhat outdated, to put it mildly.
There is concern also in rugby league about discrimination in the armed forces. It seems strange in this day and age that those who want to play rugby league in the armed forces are refused permission to do so. I hope that more progress can be made with that, because such discrimination is unacceptable.
There is concern about the way in which the media treat rugby league. The media, based as they are in south-east England, largely disregard rugby league, although it is the second most popular spectator sport in the country. Very little effort is made to report the game. Some of us are getting fed up with the way that the media trivialise certain issues. We are sick to death, for example, of reading about the problem of Gazza's knee. Millions of people in this country could not care a damn about Gazza's knee. We want to read about sport, not that kind of nonsense.
That struck me when I was returning from a meeting on Friday evening, and listened to the news headlines on Radio 2. The lead item was the Venables affair at Tottenham Hotspur—not Bosnia or the schoolchild hostages in Paris. Do the people who run the media in this country really think that is the kind of thing that people want to hear or read about? The consequence of such an approach is that millions of people are largely ignorant of the important sport of rugby league.
I vividly remember having a conversation, just over a year ago, with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who was then the Minister responsible for sport. He had just attended his first ever rugby league. He had never seen one before in his life, yet he is roughly the same age as me. He raved about what a spectacle it was, with its finesse and the skills of its players. He had never seen it before except on television, presented by the likes—sadly—of Eddie Wareing. Our game deserves better, and I hope that the Minister will mention in appropriate places that rugby league needs to be treated more seriously.
Many of my hon. Friends not present for this debate subscribe to the game of rugby league and want it to have a fairer deal than it does now. We want proper recognition of the important contribution that sport makes, and action on some well-known problems.
It strikes me that this has been an all-male debate—no female Members are present in the Chamber at the moment. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House should address the fact that sport and debates on sport tend to be all-male affairs. We lose as a nation by disregarding the interest and role of women in sport.
One of the most rapidly expanding sports in Britain is women's rugby league. For the third or fourth year running, my constituency boasts the champion women's rugby league side. I hope that we will address women's issues as well as the wider issues of rugby league and of sport in general.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Much has already been said, very ably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and by other hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) reiterate his arguments about rugby league, because, although I follow both rugby union and rugby league avidly on television, I had no idea of the complications that have entered into the relationship between rugby union and rugby league, or of the way that rugby league players have been treated by rugby union officials. It is good that such issues can be aired in a debate such as this, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use his good offices to resolve that matter quickly.
Sport has an important role to play in our country in social cohesion, particularly in urban areas. I do not underestimate the importance of country sports to the way in which people live in the country and appreciate the countryside—but in urban areas, sport offers cohesion, a sense of belonging, and a degree of humanity to vast numbers of people, who can occupy their time in a pleasurable way.
That is particularly true of inner-city or urban areas. I am pleased at the way that my own city has, on a bipartisan and apolitical basis, promoted the provision of facilities with our national indoor arena, which was recently the venue of world gymnastics competitions.
Having served on the Committee that considered the National Lottery, etc. Bill, I greatly look forward to its introduction. Money from the lottery will greatly aid the provision of capital funding for some of the purposes to which right hon. and hon. Members have alluded, such as all-weather playing fields for football or cricket and of indoor tennis courts—in which this country is sadly lacking.
There is a simple reason so few British players win at Wimbledon. For most of the year they cannot play, because there are not enough indoor tennis courts. Surely that is an ideal target for capital funding from the national lottery.
Hon. Members have also referred to skating rinks and swimming pools. Recently, a community centre was set up in Hall Green, in my constituency: I hope that swimming pools will be provided in other areas, especially urban areas. I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use his influence to ensure that Olympic-sized pools are not forgotten.
A plethora of community centres are springing up around the country, with engagingly shaped pools—

kidney-shaped and heart-shaped—but such facilities are no good for sportsmen. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage local authorities, planners and designers to provide straight runs. This is a practical proposal, and one that will not cost money: it is simply a question of directing influence appropriately.
I also hope that the Minister will consult more widely about the role of the organisations that look after British sport. I am thinking of the CCPR—which has already been mentioned—and the Sports Council, and about the effectiveness of the distribution of money.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the sizeable administration costs incurred by the Sports Council, and, in Committee stage on the National Lottery etc. Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. Coe) spoke of trying to get to grips with the problem when he was a member of the Sports Council. He found it somewhat intractable. I hope that the Minister will try to ensure that sport is rather better served by the institutions that are there to promote it.
I have a particular interest in two or three specific issues, one of which is greyhound racing. I know that the Minister has no responsibility for such matters as evening betting; let me remind him, however, that greyhound racing is very popular. Huge numbers of spectators turn up and enjoy it greatly.
I agree with many others interested in the sport that, if betting shops are allowed to open late to cover such meetings, it is only reasonable for them to pay a levy towards an activity from which they are gaining a living; that applies to horse racing, after all. I hope that my hon. Friend will make that point to my hon. Friend Minister of State, Home Office, who spoke on such matters in Committee stage on the National Lottery etc. Bill. Greyhound racing needs support, and that support should be given by those who make a living from bets on it.
I know that my hon. Friend would expect me to mention drugs. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has told us that sport can contribute to the creation of a happier and healthier nation, but we want to ensure that sport itself is healthy. Nowadays, sadly, professionalism is creeping in—along with a number of parasites who insist on trying to promote the use of drugs. They persuade sportsmen—sometimes kidding them, sometimes cajoling—that they will perform better if they fill their bodies with unspeakable chemicals.
I was concerned to hear from various sources that the Sports Council had cut its subsidy to clubs, associations and sports that undertake voluntary drug testing. I hope that my hon. Friend will investigate that, and will put all the necessary pressure on the Sports Council to devote the necessary resources to this serious problem.
I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would feel very ashamed if—in the next Olympic games, or in those held in Manchester—more British athletes were sent home. having been disqualified on the basis of drugs charges. Such incidents are a disgrace to us, and a disgrace to British sport.
I hope that the Minister will take the problem seriously, and will continue to try to persuade his colleagues at the Home Office that a change in the law is required. I hope that he will help to ensure that—within the structure of sport itself—it is accepted by federations, promoters and sponsors alike that they should sponsor only sportsmen who are prepared to be tested for drugs.
Perhaps he will have a gentle word with the Institute of Sports Sponsorship, the Advertising Standards Authority and the companies that are major sponsors of sport. I am sure that he is in regular contact with them. I do not believe that any hon. Member wants sportsmen who abuse drugs to be promoted or sponsored by commercial companies.

Mr. Key: I was surprised to hear what my hon. Friend just told me; I shall, of course, check it. The Sports Council spends some £750,000 a year on drug testing.
My hon. Friend may wish to know that, in recognition of this country's contribution, we have been chosen to host the fourth permanent world conference on anti-doping in sport, which will take place in London in September.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am delighted to hear that, and I thank my hon. Friend for investigating the other matter that I raised.
We can tackle the drugs problem, without spending huge amounts, by ensuring that everyone is on the same side—the side of clean sport. That includes promoters, television companies, sponsors and federations. I understand that some of those—including the television companies—have said that, in future, they will contemplate drugs testing; I hope that the promoters will take into account, and that the Minister will give them the necessary encouragement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) for choosing such an excellent topic, and appreciate the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Given the phrasing of the motion, Conservative Members were bound to exhibit a certain complacency; however, I do not think that, at this juncture, our sporting nation has any cause for complacency. First, I do not think that enough of our people participate in sport, because they do not have the facilities or the opportunity to do so. It is no accident that Britain is the cardiac capital of Europe; that may have something to do with diet, but it is also due to a lack of exercise and participation in sport.
We have nothing to be complacent about in our country's sporting achievements. Our national football side has played only once in the world cup final—when it had the advantage of playing on home ground; our national cricket team had disastrous tours of India and Sri Lanka recently, it lost at home to Pakistan last year and in general has had a grim record in recent years.
I wish the British Lions rugby team well for their tour of New Zealand, but I think that it would be optimistic to expect them to do tremendously well against a New Zealand side playing in its own hemisphere.
As has already been pointed out, Britain last produced a tennis champion more than 60 years ago. Our achievements are nothing to write home about. The overall performance of British teams give no cause for complacency.
I have one plaudit to bestow on the Government: I realise that £55 million has been devoted to pump-priming the Olympic games bid. We are all—not least those of us who represent constituencies in the north-west—united in hoping that that bid proves successful.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Reference has been made to the fact that the debate is male-dominated. Will my hon. Friend therefore acknowledge that Britain has produced some women tennis champions more recently than in the past 60 years?

Mr. Davies: I accept that. I should have made it clear that I was referring to male tennis champions, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me.
I congratulate the Government on their support for the Olympic games bid, whose success would, of course, bring particular advantages to my constituency, not least because we hope to stage the hockey tournament at Boundary Park in Oldham.
There are three respects in which the Government ought to take a much more proactive part in the development of sport. First, we need a full audit of our sporting facilities, including the extent to which local authorities have been obliged to cut their capital expenditure in recent years and the consequent withdrawal of sporting facilities. The reduction in shared, joint-use facilities in schools is partly attributable to the development of local management of schools. I feel that opting out will increase the extent to which schools protect their own resources and will make them less willing to make those resources available to the wider community; I regret that.
Secondly, I see no reason why we do not accept that the Americans have it right. Why on earth should not excellence in sport extend to higher education? Why should not we have sporting scholarships? Why does not the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education and say that he expects our universities—many of which are at last laying greater emphasis on skill rather then merely on the cultivation of the intellect—to use sporting scholarships to encourage excellence in sport? What of the income that we derive from staging the most prestigious tennis tournament of them all—the Wimbledon millions? Not enough of those resources are ploughed back into the sport.
At the very least, our universities could give more support to tennis. Someone with slightly sub-standard A-levels can get in to Oxford or Cambridge if he shows promise in rowing or rugby, and I have always failed to understand why it is all right for those two sports to be encouraged at those institutions of higher education, when our major sports are not encouraged by the development of sporting scholarships in higher education.
Finally, let me refer to the spectre at the feast, to which little reference has been made today. The Minister and his Department have some direct responsibility for the role of television in the development of sport. In this age of fragmented culture, individualism and loss of identity, we should recognise the extent to which major sporting events provide some social cohesion. Sport is something to which people can relate, and television is bound to play its part in the process. I do.not think that the list of great sporting events available on national television is long enough.
I regret the BSkyB deal, which has fragmented the presentation of British football. In particular, the Minister will come in for severe criticism later this year when crucial matches—in which England will take on Holland and Norway and which will help to secure our participation in the world cup—will be on restricted television because of that ridiculous deal. The Broadcasting Act 1990 is defective, and it is time that something was done about it.
The strength of British sport depends on the extent to which we can nourish the grass roots of the next generation. That means that we must do three things: we must monitor local authorities' performance and give them more resources; we must badger the Department of Education to increase sporting scholarships; and we must protect our sporting culture by ensuring that nationwide television has the right to broadcast all our key sporting events for a national audience.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House—albeit briefly, as I know that at least one other hon. Member wishes to speak—and I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on having initiated the debate.
I have the great privilege to be the secretary of the Conservative Back-Bench sports committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). As a new hon. Member, I have done my best to become involved in the promotion of sport.
Given that I represent half of one of Britain's great sporting towns, it gives me particular pleasure to be able to address the House in the week of the 40th anniversary of one of our greatest sporting triumphs—the Matthews FA cup final. I have been pleased to note the tributes that have properly been paid this week to the great team that won that final, many of whom still live in my constituency and one of whom I know well; I refer to Bill Perry who, at the very end of that historic final, scored a goal from Sir Stanley Matthews's pass to beat Bolton Wanderers 4–3.
What a pleasure it has been to be able to celebrate the 40th anniversary of that historic triumph while also celebrating the fact that Blackpool has managed to escape relegation by a single point a season after rightfully winning promotion. I look forward to great triumphs for Blackpool next season, when it is hoped that we will be promoted yet again, and I pay tribute to all those who have been involved with the club this year.
I also pay tribute to those involved in other sports, including rugby under both codes. Despite what has been said today, there are many towns, including Blackpool, where rugby league and rugby union are well supported. Swimming is also doing well in Blackpool, as are many other sports.
I wish to address some of the wider sporting issues that have been raised in the debate. I was fortunate enough to be heavily involved in the campaign to raise funds to enable two distinguished disabled athletes in my constituency to go to the paralympics, in which they participated with great success. Both were members of the British paralympic fencing team, which was highly successful, and both came back with medals. I pay tribute —on a cross-party and a non-party basis—to all those who worked hard to raise funds to enable those athletes and others to attend. It has been a privilege for me to champion in the House the cause of sport for the disabled, and I hope to continue to do so.
I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon in paying tribute to the National Coaching Foundation. Early in 1991, the Government gave £700,000 to promote

quality after-school sport opportunities for young people. A scheme known as Champion Coaching was the product of that funding. The project was designed to provide coaches to help young people to develop their sporting abilities and adopt active life styles. It got off to a strong start and, by the beginning of 1992, it had agreed to sponsor no fewer than 24 training schemes throughout the country as well as setting up no fewer than 136 schools of sport, each with a professional coach, 24 physical education roadshows and 24 parent workshops.
Those of us who have participated in the, Lords and Commons rugby XV were fortunate enough to meet last autumn some of those involved in the National Coaching Foundation. I pay tribute to everyone associated with the foundation, and to the chief executive, Sue Campbell, for all her work. I pay tribute, too, to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which has been mentioned in the debate and whose tie I have the privilege to wear today. The FSA was able to increase the NCF's funding, with an initial grant of £300,000 in recognition of the fact that it was of enormous benefit to children throughout the country and deserved to grow.
A few months later; the Foundation for Sport and the Arts gave a further £1·3 million, set aside by the trustees of that foundation to fund future expansion and new projects for the National Coaching Foundation. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon was right to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in providing funding for the National Coaching Foundation, and I look forward to its work continuing.
The hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) were, uncharacteristically, somewhat negative and grudging in their remarks about what the Government have rightly done for sport. I know that both of them believe, as I do, in the future of sport, and particularly in the development of sport for young people. I know that their speeches were uncharacteristically negative and that they would wish to join me in paying tribute to the work done for sport in this country.
I hope that we can look forward to a successful cricket season. I should mention, in the light of the comments made about the absence of lady Members, that we should pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) who became the first two lady Members to play for the Lords and Commons cricket side. I have played cricket with them in successive fixtures already this season. I look forward to the continued participation of lady Members in sport in the future.
Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I look forward to speaking at greater length on this important issue in a future debate.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am probably a unique participant in this debate because in the halcyon days of my youth, before I, like the Minister, was horizontally challenged and before the colour of my hair matured, I was a physical education teacher. I take issue with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) because his motion ignores the symbiosis between sport and


physical education. The one cannot be separated from the other. The motion could have been corrected by that addition.
My speech, in common with those of my hon. Friends, will be somewhat negative because I do not see a great deal to congratulate the Government on over the past 14 years. I will explain why. Very simply, there has been a tremendous failure to foster school sport. It is not a failure of the past 14 years, but a cultural one, because this country has not recognised the importance of sport and physical education.
One of the things that I learned when rounding myself as a person, metaphorically speaking, during my physical education course was a lot about the history of sport and physical education. I learned a lot about the philosophy of the ancients towards sport and education. It was something that was adapted over the centuries and integrated into the public school ethos, and later the university one towards sport and physical education. But it is not something which fits with our time.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) that our universities are much ignored at the present time. They face a particular problem. The university athletics unions are very concerned about the effect on sport of the Government's measures involving the student unions. I urge the Ministers to assuage their doubts about the future of sport in the universities.
I think that we should take the Olympics with a pinch of salt. The ancients treated participants in the Olympics as great heroes. In this day and age they are heroes of a different sort; for many of them the Olympics are a means of making an awful lot of money rather than anything else. I accept, however, that the Olympics are the apex of the sporting pyramid.
If I had to give any advice to the Minister—far be it from me, a humble Back Bencher, to give him advice—I believe that he should encourage participation in sport as opposed to the spectator element. We have all witnessed the unseemly row between certain elements controlling Tottenham Hotspur football club. I do not believe that that has done that club any good. Hon. Members have commented on the way in which the media have reported it. That row has not done the media or the sport any favours, and it certainly has not done any favours to our young people.
I echo what other hon. Friends have said about women's sport. I hate to say it, but the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) gave a great deal away about the reactionary attitude towards that sector of sport. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was expressing his own prejudices and was honest enough to admit that, but we must recognise that half the population is made up of women. They have had a tough time and they deserve a far better deal, whether they are playing rugby union, rugby league, touch football, hockey or amateur soccer. It ill behoves us not to provide that better deal and I sincerely hope that the Minister will do so.
One of the other things that I learned from my student days studying physical education was that sport and physical education have been neglected by all Governments. There is an indissoluble link between the physical condition and the mental one. I am sure that the Minister will remember that immortal Latin phrase "mens sana in corpore sano". That certainly applies to the health

of the nation. The only time that any Government ever appear to take any note of the worth and value of sport and physical education is, sadly, in time of war, when the people who have been recruited are found to be totally unfit. Governments then provide the impetus for improved standards of sport and physical education for the great mass of the population, not the elite.
It would certainly be in the Minister's interest and that of the nation if he remembered that there is a huge, growing problem with general fitness. That problem is not evident only among people of my own age or that of the Minister, but applies to the younger generation. We must catch them young and we must encourage them.
We must be careful, however, to avoid extremes. We do not want the Government to act with complete dereliction of interest towards sport, nor do we want to follow the former East German example, where sport was used purely for propaganda purposes. The American example represents the limbo between those extremes. Extremely high sporting standards are achieved by that country whether in Olympic, collegiate or professional sports, but the vast mass of American young people do not participate actively in sport. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
I also echo the concern expressed by a number of my hon. Friends about the damage done to school sport by a number of factors, including the burden imposed on teachers by the implementation of the national curriculum and testing. Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that morale in the teaching profession has been so undermined that teachers often have neither the time nor, sadly, the inclination to give up the many hours that they used to devote to sport. That is a sad feature of the new system.
I need not repeat what my hon. Friends have said about the number of school playing fields that have fallen into disuse or have been sold off and will never be bought back. It is tragic that local authority after local authority, regardless of political complexion, has had to sell off that land to balance the books. That is no way to encourage sport.
I should like to end on an optimistic note. I have always opposed the national lottery in principle, but I accept that one will be introduced. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to do all that they can within their power to correct the imbalance whereby a projected 4 per cent. of the proceeds will be spent on sport while, in marked distinction, 12 per cent. will go to the Exchequer.
If we are to have a national lottery, the money raised should be divided between sport and other good causes in the proportions that most people expect. It would be a tragedy if—despite the hopes and aspirations not only of the Minister, Conservative Members and my colleagues who have supported the idea of a lottery, but of those who buy tickets—three times as much money from the lottery were to go to the Exchequer than to good causes such as sport. If the Government are serious, let them put their money where their proverbial mouth is.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

British Waterways Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the last time I spoke when you were in the Chair was during a debate on the Select Committee on the Environment's report on coastal planning and protection. I complained bitterly that, although I was very interested in the subject, my constituency could not be further from the sea and that the nearest I got to it was having the grand union canal run through my constituency. However, this evening, our time has come for a debate on the canal system, and I am delighted to sponsor the Bill.
As a past chairman of the all-party waterways group and a member of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council for many years, I have followed matters affecting the canal system with considerable interest. The Bill tackles many of the problems that have been identified over the years by not only the user groups but the British Waterways Board and the Select Committee on the Environment in its report.
I am delighted to see here colleagues from both parties who have taken a close interest in waterways. I know that canal users and the British Waterways Board greatly welcome the interest and affection that there is in the House for our canal system. It is about 200 years since the legislation that first established the canal system was introduced, so it is not inappropriate that we are now debating a Bill that deals with some of the problems that have arisen in the intervening period.
British Waterways is responsible for 2,000 miles of inland waterways, 1,500 miles of continuous towpaths, 2,100 listed structures and monuments and 64 sites of special scientific interest. The Bill is promoted by British Waterways primarily to secure the additional safety of waterway users and the owners and occupiers of adjoining land, to create new conservation, environmental and recreational duties and to enable British Waterways to generate more income from reinvestment in the waterways.
The non-repair of waterways and associated works at times of emergency gives rise to the risk of serious danger to persons and property. The board believes that there is a need for specific provision granting the right to enter land for such purposes. The power of entry to third-party land to facilitate repair and maintenance was referred to in paragraph 3.29 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of May 1987. It drew attention to the fact that British Waterways has no effective statutory rights of access across private property, even in the direst emergency when life and property might be endangered. Paragraph 3.31 of the MMC report states that a general powers Bill would be the appropriate way to correct that deficiency, and that is what we are debating.
The board is unusual among statutory undertakers in having no general powers to enter land. Among the utilities, British Waterways is alone in lacking powers to deal with emergencies that threaten life and property. The National Rivers Authority can effect entry on to premises for the purpose of carrying out its water resources

functions and to act without notice in an emergency. In its capacity as a navigation authority, the NRA is in a different position from British Waterways because the natural rivers for which it is mainly responsible—it has a few canals—do not present the same risks.
It is worth drawing attention to the fact that a high percentage of canals are on embankments where the real problems lie if overtopping occurs and there is erosion of the embankment or if tree roots penetrate the lining of the canal, leading ultimately to the instability and collapse of the embankment itself. That was the cause of the recent example on the Lancaster canal, which was a worst case scenario.
The breach occurred on the offside, where British Waterways usually owns no property, late on a Friday afternoon—as always seems to be the case. The canal immediately flooded the grounds of adjoining property and threatened houses, including one occupied by a lady of very advanced years. But for the willingness of the landowner to permit British Waterways entry, to fell trees and to provide vehicular access, serious property damage would have ensued. However, in the past, not all landowners have been so accommodating, with resultant risks to public safety.
Of course, the Bill provides for the payment of compensation for loss or damage caused as a result of the exercise of the powers of entry and for the payment of a sum in the nature of a rental. That matter was raised at a recent briefing for hon. Members in the House. Moreover, the board has agreed a code of practice as to how the powers should be exercised.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why was that provision added later? If it is so important for British Waterways to have these emergency powers, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why has it taken more than two years—probably longer, since promotion of the Bill was announced—for the provision to be added? Would it not have been good sense to concentrate on that narrow aspect, about which no one disagrees, rather than tie in with it a series of other provisions which have been controversial?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to believe that safety is the primary purpose behind the Bill, but many other issues are involved and I shall deal with them in due course. The hon. Gentleman is far more of an expert on private Members' Bills than I am. He will know that they proceed slowly because people take the opportunity to raise matters that are perhaps not strictly relevant to the Bill but they wish to air. That is why it has taken so long.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman going to state that there are five points which the Inland Waterways Association would like to be added to the Bill and which have, I believe, been agreed? I must declare an interest as I am a member of that organisation. Some people who use their craft to seek work have some reservations about the protection afforded. If such matters were covered, I am sure that the Bill would get a fairer wind.

Mr. Jones: I shall deal with that issue. I am trying to go through the Bill in order so that hon. Members can follow my points.
Environmental and recreational duties are close to my heart because they stem from the Select Committee's


recommendations. Clause 23 is included to discharge an obligation, which has been accepted and supported by the Government, that British Waterways should be subject to the same general environmental and recreational duties as the NRA and the privatised water companies. The clause is directly adapted from section 8 of the Water Act 1989 and uses the same language. The Select Committee on the Environment's report on British Waterways, which was published in August 1989, recommended that a duty similar to that under section 8 should be applied to the BWB. The Government endorsed that recommendation in their response of February 1990, and it is now before the House.
Clause 23 has caused some concern among those involved with recreational interests about its precise effect. It maintains the existing equilibrium between the recreational use of waterways and their conservation and environmental value. It has been confirmed to British Waterways in advice from leading counsel that the effect of the clause is to confer additional environmental and recreational duties without diluting its maintenance obligations under the Transport Act 1968, which, in relation to commercial and cruising waterways, are of considerable importance to those with boating interests. I understand that any difficulties that the new provision would cause would in no way go beyond the normal difficulties of making a balanced judgment which many statutory bodies, including British Waterways, have to make on a daily basis.
British Waterways will be required to enhance and to conserve flora, fauna and natural features of special interest and to take equal care to protect and conserve buildings and sites of historic interest. It will also have to have regard to preserving access to towpaths for walkers and others as well as to protecting derelict waterways with potential for future recreational use. I have the Wendover arm in my constituency and I hope that it will once again come into use some time in the next 10 or 20 years.
Those duties are reflected in the new leisure and tourism strategy and environmental policy. The board recognises that towpaths are widely used for different purposes. Some are public footpaths or bridleways and will always maintain that status. The others, with no public rights of way, will continue to be available free of charge for pedestrian use. That is an unequivocal commitment which I give on behalf of British Waterways.

Ms Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has given a very important commitment. However, clause 23(4) states:
Nothing in this section shall require recreational facilities made available by the Board to be made available free of charge.
Can the hon. Gentleman give that commitment when the clause does not seem to back him up?

Mr. Jones: It is a matter of whether one looks at it from a lateral or from a linear point of view. The hon. Lady knows canals well because she represents a Birmingham constituency. She will know that some towpaths are wide and some are very narrow. There is no intention of causing any problems for those who want to walk along canals. On other parts of the canal system, such as Gloucester docks with which I am familiar, British Waterways has agreed to areas being cordoned off so that the Inland Waterways Association can have a rally for which it makes a charge. There is no problem about walking along the towpaths

free of charge. However, some part of the wider areas might have to be cut off for some purpose or other. I hope that that answers the question.

Mr. Bob Cryer: There are real concerns about charging for access to towpaths which have been accessible to the public, by and large, since the construction of the canals in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Should there not be a further provision in the Bill? If a dispute arises, not the hon. Gentleman but the Bill will be quoted. There should be a provision in the Bill to give the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman has given.

Mr. Jones: That is difficult to do. I have given a commitment that British Waterways takes as serious and categorical. From the point of view of most of us who like to use the canals for recreational purposes, that seems acceptable. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to many rallies. He will know about the arrangements to generate funds for the Inland Waterways Association and for the restoration of canals. If the IWA could not charge for such rallies because people had the right to go all the way across a towpath, it would be difficult for it to raise funds. I should not wish that to happen and I do not think that British Waterways wishes that to happen.
Part III contains powers for the safe and effective regulation of the board's waterways in the interests of all users. Part III has aroused opposition from certain boating interests which are anxious to ensure that the new controls are not unduly onerous. As a result of such obligations, a number of amendments will be proposed in Committee, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, to provide safeguards for boat users and for others. The amendments have been agreed with the IWA, the Royal Yachting Association, the Residential Boat Owners Association, the British Marine Industries Federation and the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators.
Part III would impose new minimum fire and safety standards on boats and would prevent pollution. According to Home Office statistics, between 1983 and 1988, there were more than 500 fires on boats on inland waterways; a spectacular example featured recently on BBC television news was of a pleasure boat on the Thames which was completely burnt out. The standards include specifications for engine installations, fuel systems, fire extinguishers, liquid petroleum gas and electrical appliances, ventilation systems and fuel storage. The NRA and the Broads authorities have agreed with British Waterways that there should be a common approach to craft safety. The boat safety standards will, therefore, apply to vessels on the majority of our navigable waterways. That harmonisation is welcome.
Each boat on the waterways will be inspected, as in an MOT test, but normally every four years rather than annually. Existing licence holders would have until at least July 1994 to comply if their boats were built after 1970, or until July 1995 in the case of older vessels. A standards appeals panel is to be set up on which British Waterways will be in a minority. It will include representatives of boat users. The owners of historic and other boats using the waterways may apply for exemption from the standards. Pleasure boats of all ages must be covered by third party insurance and houseboats must have moorings with


proper facilities. British Waterways estimates that already almost 90 per cent. of private pleasure boats carry third-party insurance.
At present, about 1,000 house boats are illegally moored on waterways. They, too, must have moorings with proper facilities. As a result of the current housing shortage, the board has announced a five-year moratorium on enforcement action which runs until 30 April 1996 on terms that could allow those house boats to remain until fully serviced permanent moorings were found. Following the Bill, houseboat owners will be offered three, five or seven-year agreements modelled on existing legislation for mobile homes which will replace the current annual agreement.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has listed a series of concessions that have been wrung out of the promoters. He began by saying that the Bill was an urgent safety measure. Why did the promoters not make those concessions in the House of Lords, or why did they not make them when the Bill first came to this House? Because it has taken so long to get the concessions, there is still a great deal of suspicion outside. There is also a belief that if we spin out the procedures, even more concessions will be given. Would it not have been far better for the promoters to meet the objectors at the beginning and do a deal then? I have no doubt that the promoters will have to make more concessions if they want the Bill to be enacted.

Mr. Jones: As I know from some of the points raised with me, it is difficult to pin down some of the objectors to saying what they dislike and what they want. It is only through the process of negotiation and consultation that these matters emerge. I appreciate that it is a lengthy process which has costs in terms of the matters about which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) cares. However, that lengthy process has resulted in a far greater awareness of the problems perceived by some of the groups who have objected. Those problems were not always terribly clear when they were first raised.
New permanent mooring sites are being identified and discussions are well advanced with local planning authorities. Some 92 residential moorings, both British Waterways and private, have been granted planning permission and are in various stages of development and occupation. More planning applications are expected shortly. A planning application will be made shortly for a site in Birmingham for 42 boats. Those registered are being allowed to remain on temporary moorings while the permanent sites are being developed, and most stay where they are.
I emphasise that nothing in the Bill alters the general rule that boats are free to moor against a towpath in any one place for up to 14 days except where that would cause a navigational hazard. Restrictions are necessary in the interests of securing safety and preventing congestion. They will apply only at permanent mooring sites, at water points and at certain popular sites which have special conditions, such as time limits to be fair to all users. Those will be clearly signposted.
Part IV contains provisions to extinguish unexercisable fishing rights, and rights found in old canal Acts to construct works and to provide facilities which have not been exercised since the Acts were passed up to 200 years

or more ago. The rights include rights to construct roads, railways, branch canals and other works, as well as fishing, sporting and boating rights. Those rights were created to compensate those whose land was severed and to facilitate the commercial exploitation of the canals by freight traffic.
Any modern claims to exercise those rights are for wholly different purposes and are inappropriate in modern conditions. The rights concerned are, by definition, obsolete, and attempts to exercise them can cause the board genuine difficulty in efficiently managing its operation. It is important to emphasise that the Bill provides for compensation to be paid to the owner of an extinguished right. If there is any dispute about compensation, the Lands Tribunal will arbitrate.
Quite a number of those who petitioned against the Bill made a point about bridges and the opportunity to join two pieces of land separated by a canal. I can understand that point, and British Waterways has agreed to drop the word "bridges" from the Bill to overcome that difficulty. However, as they are heritage structures, I hope that any bridges built over a canal will be in keeping with the heritage structures and that those who wish to take advantage of the opportunity will not in any way diminish our heritage.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My hon. Friend will be aware that some people challenge the contention that the rights are extinguished; indeed, they may be challenged in court. My main concern was about bridging and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the concession that he has announced and the amendment which will presumably be tabled in Committee. However, rights do not just have to be exercised over canals. In some cases—for example in relation to drainage—pipes may be required to go under a canal. On the same terms, will my hon. Friend make the same concession and therefore satisfy my lingering and remaining doubts about the Bill?

Mr. Jones: I do not see any problems with that, provided that whatever went under a canal in terms of drainage did not interfere with the canal itself—for example, by causing fracturing. Otherwise, my hon. Friend's point would not cause any difficulties, and I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks.
The majority of the 44 petitions deposited in the House were concerned about the proposals embodied in clause 27. Extensive discussions have taken place and a number have been withdrawn. Perhaps more will be withdrawn as a result of my comments this evening. On behalf of British Waterways, I invite the outstanding petitioners to submit their cases to the Committee where the issues can be debated and deliberated on.
The Bill will also give British Waterways powers for the acquisition by agreement in relation to the development of land. That should generate income over and above the grants payable by central Government and help to develop the network for leisure activities and enjoyment.
At earlier briefing meetings with British Waterways, some hon. Members voiced concern at what they described as the hidden agenda behind these powers. There seems to be a fear that the powers are a precursor to privatisation and will facilitate the sale of the most lucrative British Waterways assets before privatisation. That is untrue, as the Government have made clear on many occasions, including, to my knowledge, before the Select Committee on the Environment when we considered the matter.
For the foreseeable future, our canals and waterways will depend on considerable Exchequer support. However, that does not mean that there is no potential for British Waterways to raise additional resources from disposing of redundant assets. It is worth emphasising that, over the past five years, the selective sale of properties with no operational use and not required to protect the environment or heritage, has yielded £27·4 million. Reinvestment on the waterways over the same period totalled £28·4 million.
British Waterways is committed to ensuring that the disposal of any land or buildings surplus to requirements results in developments that will complement and enhance the waterways. Clause 23 effectively imposes such requirements on British Waterways. There are many examples around the country of new developments alongside our waterways, such as Gloucester docks, which positively enhance and encourage the use of our waterways. I do not know whether the gas street basin is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), but I visited it when the Select Committee considered the subject, and I was very impressed by the obvious recreational pleasure derived by the local residents there.
Finally, British Waterways has recently been through a period of major change, with management being devolved from the centre to its regions and waterways. Considerable effort has been expended by British Waterways throughout the promotion of the Bill to reassure its users that those changes were for the better and much has been achieved through the publication of statements of intent about British Waterways' future polices and commitment to consultation. In particular, in January 1992, British Waterways published in the form of a customer charter, a document entitled "Caring for our Customers" which explained what the public could expect in terms of the spread and quality of services.
The charter included an internal complaints procedure involving successively the waterway and regional managers and then the board's chief executive. It committed British Waterways to the principle of an independent external review in appropriate cases where complaints have not been satisfactorily resolved through the internal machinery.

Mr. Cryer: I hope that the charter is a help. However, we are unfortunately dealing with legislation. The hon. Gentleman said "finally" as though he were approaching the end of his speech. Will he consider clause 13 which, in relation to houseboats, gives the board absolute power to provide
such further general terms as they think fit, in addition to or in substitution for those set out in the said Schedule I"?
A charter may be all very well, but it has absolutely no statutory force. In effect, we are giving British Waterways the power to produce statutory terms and conditions. However, such powers were clearly defined in the Transport and Works Act 1992 in terms of delegated powers to Ministers. As I recall, every aspect of that Act is subject to statutory instruments under the negative or affirmative procedures. Should there not be that kind of parliamentary accountability when many thousands of houseboat owners are affected and not this absolute power which is being given to British Waterways?

Mr. Jones: I was explaining about the code of practice. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by my

comments about an ombudsman and his powers. British Waterways has developed proposals in consultation with the Department of the Environment to establish a non-statutory waterways ombudsman to investigate complaints of maladministration by the board, which will be bound by his or her recommendations. That is more than can be said in local government or in relation to the reports of other ombudsmen. I am pleased to say that the appointment of the waterways ombudsman, which will be endorsed by the Secretary of State, will be announced shortly and will thereafter take immediate effect.
We all have a great affection for the canal system, and I hope that the Bill will enhance it for many years to come.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It may be convenient for the House if I intervene at this stage to give the Government's view of the Bill. First, I should say how much I welcome the opportunity to have a debate on our inland waterways. They are part of the glory of our islands and we are committed to their fullest possible development, for the widest possible range of leisure and recreation activities, as a precious environmental and heritage asset. That commitment is demonstrated by the continuing payment of Government grant to British Waterways totalling £50 million a year and by the record level of investment in waterways maintenance in recent years.
Most objective observers would agree that the waterway network is now in a better condition than it has been for many years. Indeed, this month sees the publication of the 250th issue of that excellent journal, Waterways World, in which the editor, Hugh Potter, reflects on the 21 years during which Waterways World has been published. Looking at the achievements of the past 21 years, he says:
In 1972, the restoration of the Kennet and Avon was just a dream; the Huddersfield and Rochdale canals were impossibilities. We now have the Kennet and Avon open and the trans-Pennine canals well on their way to full restoration. The Caldon and Basingstoke canals, the Great Ouse and the Upper Avon have all been reopened. How many boaters navigating those waterways today have the slightest idea how fortunate they are? They are experiencing 200 years of history, but if it had not been for the remarkable events of the last 21 years then boaters might not have had those waterways to give them such pleasure today.
Much has been achieved in recent times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has said, 1993 is a particularly joyous year for canals in Great Britain as it marks the 200th anniversary of the passing of the first enabling Acts allowing for canal construction in this country.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Minister rightly quotes from Waterways World the achievements of those canal restoration schemes. However, all those schemes, like the Barnsley canal restoration scheme in my area, have received no support from the Government. The restoration schemes were left to small groups of volunteers who fought hard over many years to bring into being the idea of restoring some of the famous waterways, so it is wrong for the Minister implicitly to claim credit on behalf of the Government for the achievements mentioned in that magazine.

Mr. Baldry: Over the years, the Government have made considerable sums of money available to the British Waterways Board, and we continue to do that. As I said, we have given £50 million in grant aid. I readily pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers up and down the country who have helped to restore our canals and waterways. The Kennet and Avon and many other canals and waterways that have come back into use have done so as a result of the considerable work done by those volunteers. I hope that that interest will continue because their involvement in the waterways is much appreciated and much valued by the British Waterways Board and by hon. Members.
The British Waterways Board is at the forefront of the events celebrating two centuries of canal life, especially the weekend of "Canals 200" festivities across the country next weekend when a large number of organisations will take part. The Royal Mail is also celebrating our canal heritage by issuing a set of commemorative stamps in July. Looking around the Chamber today, I think that most hon. Members have a waterway or canal interest in their constituency, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston): the Oxford canal runs through my constituency.
We have considered the contents of this private Member's Bill and, in principle, have no objections to its proposals. They are consistent with the board's existing statutory responsibilities. The powers that the board is seeking are designed to improve the safety of its waterways and allow BW to manage its assets more effectively and efficiently. The proposals are aligned to British Waterways' integrated business strategy, which was endorsed by the Government and, indeed, welcomed by the Select Committee on the Environment in 1989.
The strategy provides for the development of the board's property assets in partnership with the private sector as an integral part of BW's waterway management. Increased income from property development can be ploughed into waterway improvements to the benefit of all waterway users. The strategy has allowed BW to reinvest some £28 million in the waterways over the past five years. Sixty per cent. of BW's operating and maintenance costs are currently paid for by the taxpayer through Government grants totalling some £50 million a year. British Waterways' boating customers directly contribute less than 12 per cent. of those costs. Against that background, we are encouraging British Waterways to broaden its customer base and increase revenues from those who benefit from the waterways. Given the level of taxpayer support invested in British Waterways, we are also pressing the board to improve its efficiency and cut running costs.
The board's proposals in the Bill—to be given powers of emergency access over third party land, as discussed in the 1987 report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and improve the management of its assets—are consistent with a drive for greater efficiency. If enacted, the Bill will generally speaking leave the board in a similar position to other statutory undertakers.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thank the Minister for giving way op that point. Recently, there were two breaches on the Lancashire stretch of the Leeds to Liverpool canal and there was considerable difficulty with access. The matter of access is urgent because, obviously,

breaches cannot be dealt with quickly if people do not have access. That part of the Bill must be welcomed so that BW can deal with such problems speedily.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point—I am sure that it will be supported by all hon. Members who take a common sense approach to the Bill.
I understand that concern has been expressed about the Bill representing some sort of hidden agenda for privatising British Waterways. I must make this absolutely clear: I assure the House that the Government have no plans to privatise the British Waterways Board, nor are there proposals to phase out Government subsidy. We recognise that the heritage, educational and environmental value of waterways merits continuing substantial support from the taxpayer.

Ms Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: I shall give way in a moment.
I know that other concerns about the Bill in the past have been raised by the Inland Waterways Association and other organisations. It is for the Bill's promoter, British Waterways, to satisfy the House that the powers that the BW board proposes to take are justified. Recently, it has made considerable efforts to meet objectives and respond to objections. It is not without significance that there is not one mention of the Bill in the current issue of Waterways World. If there had been continuing concern from boat owners, boat operators and others with interests, I would expect that concern to be reflected in current publications relating to waterway interests.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I assure the Minister that people are still writing in with a great deal of concern. A lot of concern has been expressed in publications relating to waterways in the past 18 months. I should like an undertaking from the Minister that the Government will keep their promise and not privatise the whole waterways network. If they encourage Inland Waterways to sell a particular section which might be profitable or too expensive to keep in terms of a canal, that would break up either the existing network or the potential for the future of the network. Can we have an assurance that there is no intention to fragment the waterways by selling parts of them?

Mr. Baldry: I readily give that undertaking. British Waterways has a statutory definition as to what is a waterway and we have no intention of reconsidering that definition. As I said, we are committed to British Waterways and to maintaining the waterways network in the United Kingdom.

Ms Short: Many peope are concerned about the danger that the Government may privatise British Waterways. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He said that the Government have no plans so to do. Before the election, the Government told us that they had no plans to increase value added tax, but we know what has happened in relation to domestic fuel. We know that the Government are planning to privatise the forests and railways in Britain, so I am sorry to say that I am a little suspicious about what the Minister said. Will he give us an absolute commitment that in the lifetime of this Government there will be no move whatever to privatise any part of British Waterways?

Mr. Baldry: The proposal to privatise or take powers with regard to British Rail, British Coal and other industries was a clear manifesto commitment which the Government are properly honouring. All that I am saying is that the Government have no intention, in this Parliament or any subsequent Parliament—so far as I am aware—of privatising any part or the whole of British Waterways.
I should mention the proposals in clause 23 on the board's general environmental and recreational duties. That clause has the Government's full approval as it fulfills our commitment to the Select Committee on the Environment to extend to BW the environmental and recreational duties for water companies and the National Rivers Authority in section 8 of the Water Act 1989. As a public body, BW is already under a general duty to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. Clause 23 clarifies that duty in accordance with the wishes of the Select Committee and is framed along the same lines as the provision in the Water Act 1989. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) stressed that the clause does not undermine the board's maintenance obligations under the Transport Act 1968.
While the Government believe that generally the Bill contains a sensible set of proposals, I recognise that not all of them are non-controversial. The Bill received extensive consideration in another place in the last Parliament, and I understand that negotiations on outstanding concerns have continued. That has been evidenced today by a number of the concessions that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister referred to the general principle of the Bill. The powers in the Bill enable the British Waterways Board to delete the whole of schedule 1 and substitute its own terms and conditions. If the Bill is passed in its present form, we shall be allowing the British Waterways Board to legislate. We shall be allowing it to alter the terms of primary legislation passed by the House. Surely the Minister cannot agree to that sort of thing. The House takes a keen interest when Ministers seek what are known as Henry VIII clauses. Surely we should not allow outside bodies to have such powers.

Mr. Baldry: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill is one that I would share. It must be for the House to decide whether the powers that the promoters of the Bill seek to take are justified. My concern and that of the Government in relation to a private Bill is to ensure that nothing in the Bill conflicts with the general principles of Government policy or public policy, and there is no such conflict in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West mentioned some amendments to part III of the Bill which have been agreed with a consortium of boating organisations, including the Inland Waterways Association and the British Marine Industries Federation. As a member of the IWA, I welcome that agreement, both in itself and as a sign of a co-operative spirit between the boating organisations and the British Waterways Board. I have already touched on the need to increase public awareness of the value of our inland waterways and to broaden the customer base of BW's waterways in order to secure its long-term future. That is a challenge for both BW and its customer organisations. A constructive dialogue between the two is to be welcomed.
I know that in the past concerns have been expressed about the way in which British Waterways liaises with its customers. It is for BW management to ensure that adequate arrangements are in place for consulting waterway users and dealing with complaints. It has already put a great deal of effort into improving customer relations and has recently examined how complaints could be more effectively handled. Early in 1992, the board introduced a formal complaints procedure and gave a commitment to the appointment of an independent ombudsman. His or her role would be to look into cases of complaints against BW and decide whether they were dealt with fairly and reasonably.
I am delighted today to welcome the creation of that post, which will come into effect as soon as possible. I see that positive development as yet another successful example of the principles of the citizens charter in action, building on the Government's determination to improve quality of service in the public sector.
It must, of course, be for BW as the Bill's promoter, to persuade the House that the powers that it proposes to take are justified. The Committee which will consider the Bill will be in a better position than we are in this debate to consider points of detail—it is clear that there are several points of detail to be dealt with—and to hear expert evidence on them. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed to Committee for more detailed consideration.

Ms Clare Short: People throughout Britain are increasingly conscious of the enormous value to their quality of life of Britain's canal system. Until not so many years ago, people read about the importance of the canals in the development of the industrial revolution. They often saw them as dirty old waterways somewhere in the middle of their city. Although boat and barge owners always treasured the canals, in the general popular consciousness the canals were perhaps not as valued as they might have been.
That position is changing remarkably. Certainly in my city, people are beginning to see the enormous value of canals in cities that do not have many rivers. They realise the value of waterways and walkways and the possibility of having pleasure in boats, by walking or cycling along the canal, and so on. There has been a great shift in the value attached to the canal system. People realise that it improves the quality of life in our cities, especially where there is no other access to water. That is the context in which we should consider the Bill.
We should regard our waterways as national treasures to be nurtured and cared for so that they can give pleasure to the present generation and future generations. Given the costs of transportation, perhaps we shall look to the canal system to transport heavy goods again; we now pollute our countryside by trundling massive lorries up and down our motorways. I should not be surprised if in future years the canals were used increasingly for transportation as well as for pleasure.
I am sure that many hon. Members share my experience of the Bill. My first real knowledge of it came from increasing numbers of letters from people who know and care for the waterways. They were desperately worried


about the detailed provisions of the Bill. People who lived, worked and played on the canal were worried that their rights would be undermined by the Bill.
As I read those letters, I shared the anxiety expressed in them. I thought that many of the objections were reasonable. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the Bill was first introduced in our second Chamber, as I like to call it. The second Chamber has done an excellent job on the Bill. If I may digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, in a system such as ours, in which power is so concentrated in the Executive, there is a strong case for a second Chamber. That has been demonstrated in the work that it has done on the Bill. It is just a pity that it is not elected.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, enormous concessions and changes have been made as a result of the work put in by the second Chamber. It is a great pity that the Bill was introduced in such an unacceptable form. All sorts of fears and reasonable alarms were created. The Bill has been massively modified. British Waterways would have been better advised to consult more broadly before it introduced the Bill.
I am sure that everyone present has read the proceedings of the Select Committee of the House of Lords. It is impressive to see in our democracy ordinary citizens petitioning and making objections and the promoters of the Bill making major concessions because those objections are reasonable. I should like to think that the Government, who so nakedly fail to listen to any objection, however reasonable, might learn a little from the reasonable nature of that process.
The Bill that we are considering is much better and much less objectionable than the original Bill. The Labour party had three major fears about the original Bill which were summarised in a briefing prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and circulated to all Labour Members. I can do no better than to quote the paragraph that summarised our concerns. It said:
Labour has three prime concerns about the Bill: first, that the British Waterways Board may cease being custodians of part of our national heritage and instead become more a property selling and developing agency; second, that the Bill contains a number of impositions on boat owners, some legitimate but some fairly arbitrary; and third, that the Bill might allow the Board to charge for recreation and access to the canal system.
Major concessions have been made on all three points.
With regard to our fear that the Bill might turn the British Waterways Board into a property development agency, we are reassured that the environmental duties imposed on the board have been strengthened. The board has dropped subsection (5) of clause 23, which made it clear that the strengthened environmental duties were unenforceable, so the Bill is much more acceptable and stronger in terms of environmental protection, which would come before any commercial motive. Therefore, that provides real reassurance on that important matter.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about any possibility of privatising the waterways. The terms in which he summarised the position the second time were unequivocal. He made it clear that he had no plans to seek

to privatise any part of the British waterways in the lifetime of this Parliament. We are all grateful for that, because the fears were real.
It is clear that the environmental duties laid out in clause 25 restrict the board in any proposals that it might have to act as a property developer. The amendment promised in paragraph 45 of the House of Lords Select Committee report on remaining waterways that might have potential use strengthens that undertaking even further, so waterways that are not in use now but might be brought into use are also protected by that general environmental undertaking. That is good.
I mentioned another subject in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). Clause 23(4) states:
Nothing in this section shall require recreational facilities made available by the Board to be made available free of charge.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said on behalf of British Waterways. He gave an unequivocal undertaking that there will be no charge for using towpaths, to which people now have access. I understood his undertaking, which was quite clear.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there might well be developments alongside waterways and canals, from which it may be possible to raise funds to be used to clean up pollution. No one is opposed to that. I am worried that the presure being applied by the Government on British Waterways might cause BW to have to raise funds to meet more and more of the costs. The Minister said that more of the costs of waterways should be raised in funds.
I do not think that British Waterways would be self motivated, but, despite the undertakings given by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West, I believe that over the years there may be increasing pressure on British Waterways, especially as the Government may reduce the money allocated to support the waterways. British Waterways will be under growing pressure to charge for the use of waterways. I understand the undertaking given by the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure made it sincerely on behalf of British Waterways. However. given the Government's attitude to obtaining commercial returns from the waterways and given what the Minister said earlier, I am still not satisfied that unreasonable charges will not be imposed on people who now take their use of the waterways for granted.

Mr. Baldry: It may be helpful if I clarify how the Government understand that part of the Bill. As I suspect the hon. Lady may know, for more than 30 years British Waterways has had the ability under section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 to charge for any recreational facilities that it provides, but it has not charged for access to towpaths. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made clear on behalf of British Waterways—he gave an undertaking to the House —it has no intention of doing so.
The Bill is not designed to increase British Waterways' commercial assets. It does nothing and adds nothing to the powers of charging which the board already has. It merely clarifies that any facilities that BW provides under the clause need not be free of charge. If the board incurs costs in providing facilities for organised sports events on land, it should be able to recover a contribution from those who benefit. It is very much in that context that the Government understand that part of the Bill.

Ms Short: I hear what the Minister says. We all agree that it is wholly reasonable to charge for some activities that take place on the waterways in order to raise funds and use the money to clean up pollution and carry out necessary work. However, I remain concerned, and I think that the matter must be discussed in Committee and further undertakings must be sought from BW. I am worried that the pressure exerted by the Government on BW to cover more and more of its costs will inevitably lead to charging people for walking on towpaths that they have used throughout history. I understand the undertakings, but they have not been made in the Bill, and I remain concerned about that.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Lady mentioned cycling, and the pleasure affforded to those using the canal towpaths. British Waterways recently stopped charging for permits. If BW were under the sort of pressure described by the hon. Lady, the reverse would be the case. British Waterways has first to consider the practical aspects. There is no way that a system for charging for the use of towpaths for walking could be introduced. It benefits the canal system if many people use the towpaths. Many of the reports of damage and potential danger come from members of the public, as I know because I have a long length of the Grand Union canal in my constituency.

Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman pooh-poohs my fears, but I heard what the Minister said. As I recall it, he said that the Government gave a subsidy or allocation of about £50 million a year to the waterways. I also recall that he said that about 10 per cent. of the costs of boat users were raised in fees—

Mr. Baldry: Boat users contribute 12 per cent. of the costs of British Waterways.

Ms Short: I am grateful to the Minister—the figure is 12 per cent. I am worried by those two figures. The Minister also said—and I think that it is in the framework of law —that British Waterways is required to make a commercial return as often as it can. The logic of that is that it will seek to make more and more charges. We all agree that charges for some additional services would be reasonable, but I remain worried that that might lead to charging for basic uses of the waterways. I hope that more undertakings will be given in Committee.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a charge is no longer made for a general bicycle permit. Many people, certainly those on the canals around Greater Manchester, are concerned that there is competition between walkers, horse riders —riding horses on towpaths is a traditional activity—and cyclists—who have been using the towpaths for at least 70 years. Earlier this century, cycling was an important means of getting from the locks. There is considerable wear and tear on the towpaths. It has been suggested that one way to ration the use of towpaths would be to insist on permits for cyclists and horse riders and, possibly, on a charge for walkers. I realise that it is difficult to maintain towpaths for those three activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek assurances that there is no intention to circumvent that rationing or sharing policy by imposing charges.

Ms. Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who elaborates the general worries that I am trying to describe. I am sure that he will seek his own assurances. I am not

certain that we shall obtain any more assurances today than those we have been given by the Minister and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West. The Committee that discusses the Bill should return to the subject and table amendments to protect people's right to enjoy the canals.
I said that there were three reasons why the Labour party originally had doubts about the Bill. The first related to the drive to privatise or make commercial development the Bill's overwhelming purpose. Protection against those moves is afforded by the strength of clause 23 and relevant amendments. We have discussed the possibility of charges; I have stated that I do not believe there is strang enough protection and I hope that the Committee will return to the subject. The third reason for our doubts involves the impositions on boat owners.
There is absolutely no doubt that major concessions and changes have been made to the Bill due to the very reasonable objections and petitions of boat owners and those who live in boats. Those fears have been considered in our second Chamber. However, I have a letter from the Residential Boat Owners Association which was passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I noticed that he was honorary president of the association, so I thought that I should take the letter seriously.
It seems to summarise the remaining concerns of residential boat owners. We all know that they have been very concerned, and that many negotiations have taken place and many concessions have been made. The letter summarises the association's three remaining concerns. It states that its first concern relates to clause 13(1) and schedule 1. The letter states that the provisions lay down
that
the Board would have the right to terminate a houseboat certificate if 'the houseboat or any equipment is having a detrimental effect on the amenities of the locality on the site.' This clause is the same as in the Mobile Homes Act, and in the Mobile Homes Survey (1992) published by the Department of the Environment it was shown that this provision is open to subjective judgment and therefore to abuse. It would be better to write any regulations about the condition of a residential boat and its mooring into the local mooring agreement rather than fix it in statute.
I hope that we will get an answer to that point from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West.
The association's second anxiety has to do with clause 15, which is about penalties. The association suggests that the board already has enough penalty-making powers and does not need more. It suggests consolidation of existing legislation. The same point was made in the House of Lords Select Committee report. We hope for an answer from the Bill's sponsor.
The third concern of the association is that it would like to amend section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 to permit the owners of boats seized by the board to have immediate access to their possessions on the boats. I understand that that provision had been removed or softened, but I hope that the sponsor will be able to give me an assurance on that—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To respond to the hon. Lady's point about dangerous or deleterious houseboats: I understand that the Department of the Environment is reviewing the relevant part of the mobile homes legislation because it has not worked terribly well in practice. I am happy to add that the BWB is looking into that and is in negotiation with the association whose concerns the hon. Lady has read out to try to resolve the matter amicably.

Ms Short: I am grateful for that. It still leaves the two other points. Perhaps if I give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the association's letter he may be able to help us further. For people who live on boats, this is a serious matter because all their property can be seized. I had understood that the danger had now diminished, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can fill us in on that later.
My final point is to be found in paragraph 54 of the Select Committee's report. It has to do with the relationship between the BWB and those who live on and enjoy boats. The report says that that relationship has been poor, and that consultation and complaints procedures have been poor. I am glad of the progress represented by the commitment to an ombudsman. If he or she is to have the power to make binding arbitration, he or she will be much more powerful than, say, the local government ombudsman. I know of a frustrating case in which the latter ruled against a local councillor, but there has been a refusal to implement the ruling.
We expect more problems in this area, even with the best will in the world. There are 20,000 boats on our canal system, 2,000 of them with no moorings. We want people to enjoy their boats, but the chances are that more and more of them will want to mess around in boats. More and more people in our estuaries have nowhere to moor their boats, and they are beginning to interfere with the wildlife. Given that increasing ownership, there will have to be some regulation to protect the quality of our canals. Similarly, although there are 169 authorised houseboats, we know that there are another 1,000 that are unauthorized—a serious problem. Clearly, we need permanent, good moorings for people who want to live in their boats.
The BWB has made some major concessions to allow those with no authorised moorings a longer time in which to acquire authorised moorings. I am still worried that the BWB may not give undertakings to all who register in the hope of getting moorings that they will be certain of acquiring them. Under the Bill, it remains possible that some people who have lived in boats for a long time will not be offered permanent moorings after the transitional period. There is certainly no absolute assurance of that.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: May I offer the hon. Lady a personal observation? I have dealt with the BWB throughout the 10 years I have been in the House. At first, I thought that it was awful and unresponsive. It is still not perfect—none of us is—but the improvement over the years has been immense. I am happy to pay tribute to the local staff of the BWB for their responsiveness now.

Ms Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; what he says is good. When I first came to the House 10 years ago —it sometimes feels longer—I used to receive a lot of letters about trivial matters that troubled people living on boats—disputes that should have been resolvable without involving a Member of Parliament. There has indeed been a considerable improvement. I maintain, however, that the possibilities for conflict, if everyone is not guaranteed a mooring, are great. We need fair consultative procedures so that boat users can agree certain standards. Then, if certain irresponsible owners will not comply, they will know that the standards have been reasonably arrived at.
John Stuart Mill said in his lovely little book "On Liberty" that we will truly know that we live in a free society when there are plenty of eccentrics living in it.
During the past 15 years or so, perhaps we have got rid of some of our eccentrics—but some of them remain, living on, caring for and loving their boats. It is important that each of them has the right to complain and to be protected. British Waterways will find that it can deal with some of the awkward customers more easily if it has first consulted the majority of boat users and implemented standards with their support.
Many of our initial concerns have been met. I have outlined the remaining ones, which I hope will be satisfied by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West and in Committee.

Sir Anthony Durant: I claim to be one of the eccentrics who takes an active interest in boats, who owns a boat and who spends a lot of time with them.
I speak for the Inland Waterways Association in this debate, and I am chairman of the parliamentary waterways group, which position I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). The IWA has negotiated with the BWB for many months; there has been a great deal of toing and froing between the two bodies. The IWA has also fully consulted its members.
The IWA supports in principle three items in the Bill: the emergency powers of entry, the standards of construction and insurance, and houseboat regulation. It agrees with these items for safety reasons.
Some people who live along the edge of canals are still worried, however, about the emergency powers of entry. I hope that the BWB will use them only in extremis, when banks have burst and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has asked me particularly to mention this matter, as some of his constituents who live right on the canals are worried about the powers being used too arbitrarily. I hope that the board will bear that in mind.
The IWA has received a number of commitments from the board, and they are on record, but the association is worried that they might not necessarily be incorporated in the Bill. So I am here to make sure that they are put on record in the debate.
Five points are material: first, the powers to prevent mooring and to refuse to license boats on the grounds that a mooring is unsuitable—this refers to clauses 17, 18 and 20 in part III. There have been some negotiations on this, and I hope that the promises that have been made will be honoured. The Wooden Canal Craft Trust, another boating organisation, is particularly worried on this score.
I understand that clause 25, which deals with powers to dispose of property and subsidiaries, is to be deleted. I welcome that, but seek reassurance that it is to be deleted. The omission of the Inland Waterways Association from the boat standards appeal panel is causing concern. That panel will examine boat standards, and it is right that there should be a meeting of minds of those who run the waterways, those who use them and boat owners so that some principles are established for boat standards.
Those who enforce standards can be stroppy and difficult, and that is a deterrent to some boat owners whose vessels, although beautiful, are old. They were built at a time when the rules were not as stringent as they are now,


and it is as well to bear that in mind when examining boat standards. The IWA would like to be on the panel and explain those anxieties.
Clauses 28, 29 and 30 deal with the power to reduce the rights of commercial shipping in docks. We have been given promises about those clauses and want to see them amended. There are to be powers to limit the opening hours of locks on the Severn. It is odd that British Waterways is moving in that direction, when the authority for the Thames is trying to find ways to keep the locks open longer. It is considering electronic equipment, so that a licensed boat owner can insert a card in a slot to switch on the electricity and work the lock. Shorter opening hours will deter boating, and I am concerned about that.
Clause 32 will delete from the Severn Navigation Act 1842 the rights on the opening of locks. The clause that seems to be causing most concern is clause 27. Much time was spent on that in the House of Lords, especially debating the rights of those who have ownership rights along a canal. In the Act that created the grand junction canal 200 years ago this year, great consideration was given to the rights of people who lived anywhere near it. It stated:
Canal may be made through Mrs. Seare's Pleasure Grounds under certain Restrictions. No Lock to be erected within a Mile of Mrs. Seare's Land at Bulbourne without her Consent. No Injury to be done to the Mills of the Hon. Mrs. Leigh.
That Act of 1793 in the reign of George III took great care over people's rights, and I am concerned that clause 27 will work against such rights. The Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union have now agreed with British Waterways about examining clause 27 but the IWA is still concerned about rights.
One of the purposes of the clause is to raise more revenue for the BWB. That has been mentioned in the debate, and it is in line with the plan produced by the Department of the Environment in 1989. Perhaps the clause should not be in a Private Member's Bill; if people's rights are to be rescinded, that should be done in a public Bill.
As I have said, the IWA is concerned about some parts of the Bill. Many concerns have been allayed because the Bill's promoter and the BWB have been helpful in every respect. I know that their intentions are honourable and that they are trying to improve the system and to assist those who use the waterways and those who live alongside them. I hope that the concerns I have mentioned will be considered by the BWB before it makes its final decision.

Sir Russell Johnston: In this debate, I speak as a constituency Member and not as a party representative. My involvement in the issue arises from being the Member of Parliament for the Caledonian canal, which connects the lochs forming the basic part of the Great Glen which gashes across Scotland. The major loch, Loch Ness, contains my well-known constituent, the monster. I hope that there are no suggestions that the monster should be in any way licensed because that would be resisted, not least by the gentleman himself.

Ms Short: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is not a she?

Sir Russell Johnston: Although the monster has been seen, it has never been heard, and therefore it cannot be female. I say that with due deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Short: That is uncharacteristically ungracious of the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he might like to reconsider his remarks. I invite him to do so.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry if I offended the hon. Lady. I had no intention of offending anybody.
The most remarkable thing about the exercise that has brought the Bill to the House is the amount of mistrust among many waterway users of the good will of the board. That has been most noticeable. It is significant that not one of the hundreds of letters that I receive every week has argued that I should vote for the Bill—apart from letters from the BWB. I am speaking not just about last week but about the time since the exercise started. That was not always so and I am not clear about how the change came about.
The hon. Members for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said that things have got a bit better than they were 10 years ago. When I entered the House nearly 30 years ago, things were quite good. The last time that I had substantial dealings with the board was in the early 1970s when the Laggan locks on the Caledonian canal gave way, leading to the canal becoming blocked. We had much help from the then Minister, now Lord Howell, and there was general good will.
Some hon. Members may recollect Sir Frank Price, who was a chippie sort of chap. He was the chairman of the board and engaged in many consultations. I am not sure how much account he took of those consultations, but he was often to be seen. Over the next decade, there was silence, which I mistakenly assumed to be benign. No one wrote to me to say that the BWB was behaving badly, so I presumed that it was not and followed the generally sound political principle of letting sleeping dogs lie.
However, perhaps it was also germane that the BWB, which until then had maintained regular contact by way of meetings at least annually, also reduced its level of contact. Whatever the reasons and in the case of the Caledonian canal—I cannot speak for the rest of the system—part of the reduction must have arisen from managerial centralisation, which removed decisive, responsible people. One such person was Brian Davenport, a rather fiery chap who was in charge of the Caledonian canal when I entered Parliament. One could contact him quickly and easily. However, control passed to Glasgow; although Glasgow was not far away in one sense, in another it was quite a distance, and I do not mean simply in terms of miles.
Whatever the reason, the relationship declined and quietly and insidiously soured. I am sure that the present chairman, David Engman, whom I have met three times, is seeking to repair the situation that he has inherited, but I fear that that which is desired has yet entirely to be achieved. Mistrust certainly runs deep, and although much progress has been made in alleviating concerns, many remain.
To put it in a nutshell, British Waterways portrays the Bill as being about safety and environmental improvement


and many of the punters think that it is about more money for the board and more impositions on them. That fear may or may not be justified.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West, who made a fair speech when he introduced the Bill, dwelt for some time on the problems of access. I do not deny that there can be problems, but I do not think that there is a significant general cause for concern. An interesting, almost amusing, exchange of letters passed across my desk —at the end of last month, so it is quite up to date. It was about a long dispute that one of my constituents, Mr. David Stevenson, has been having with British Waterways about land ownership in Gairlochy, which is at one end of the Caledonian canal.
It would be inappropriate to go into too much detail, but I shall quote a letter from British Waterways' solicitor who says, inter alia—all lawyers say that, and this chap certainly writes a good lawyer's letter—
it seems that the dispute has been escalated by his"—
that is Mr. Stevenson's—
removing and replacing of the padlock on the gate to a roadway which he and the Board use for access purposes and which runs across the land which is the subject of the dispute. Previously, each of the parties had held keys to the padlock, which is a position we wish to revert to pending the outcome of investigation.
In his letter, Mr. Stevenson says:
Mr. Duffy states the dispute has been escalated by me…This is simply not true. One of their customers smashed the gate and despite being pressed by letter on numerous occasions British Waterways declined or refused to have it repaired. Highland Regional Council…insisted that the gate be kept shut and supervised in the interest of safety. Therefore I had no alternative but to repair the gate and provide a lock. One of the Waterways supervisors has been provided with a key".
There we have two contradictory statements on a relatively minor matter. The hon. Member for Ladywood said that when she first became a Member of Parliament she received quite a number of letters dealing with smallish matters that should not have reached a Member of Parliament. However, that was an interesting exchange.
I know Mr. Stevenson well and he is an honest man. I do not believe that he would write lies. There is a general lack of confidence in what the board does. The Minister has been categorical, in response to points made by the hon. Member for Ladywood, in denying that there was any hidden agenda on privatisation. However, many people think there is a hidden agenda only if it is one of more regulations and more cost being laid upon them. They are not sure of the board.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the good point that many of the advantages listed by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West were slowly extracted from the board over a long time, and not all in the House of Lords. From my first involvement in this exercise, I found that difficult to understand.
The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who is chairman of the parliamentary group, went through the views of the Inland Waterways Association. Its most recent letter refers to the ombudsman. I am not sure what powers this man—or woman: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Ladywood—this person may have, or the terms of reference under which he will operate. It is

interesting that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West implied that that would be done, and soon. That is to be welcomed.
There is some division between at least one of the houseboat organisations and the IWA. Many people live in houseboats, of which I think that there are 6,000 or 7,000. Some, as the hon. Member for Reading, West said, are not new vessels. Inevitably, those who live on them fear that they may be subject to regulations that do not bear directly on safety.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I raised with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). Clause 13(2) gives absolute powers to British Waterways to produce
further general terms as they think fit
to apply to houseboat certificates. It is a matter of concern that it can simply wave to one side a whole schedule and substitute its own. That worries houseboat owners.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is quite right and that bears directly on the trust that I mentioned earlier. One may be prepared to give many powers to someone on whom one can rely to exercise them in a reasonable, fair and trustworthy manner. I am not saying that British Waterways is not, but there is no doubt that many people are suspicious.
The original Bill did not recognise the existence of a separate Scottish legal system, which reflected rather badly on British Waterways. I gather that such changes as it is introducing have now been sent off for approval by the Scottish Office. However, I am not clear as to what powers British Waterways is claiming in respect of lochs. The Caledonian canal is a linking, not a continous, canal, which joins the different lochs. I do not know whether the board wants to impose licensing within lochs and has been told that section 43 of the Transport Act 1962, to which the Minister referred, would enable that to happen. I should like to be assured on that matter.
Time is not on our side. I do not wish to detain the House for long. I have expressed my major concerns and I am still not convinced of the urgency of the Bill. I accept that there has been progress and improvements have been made. It was significant that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West praised the improvements more than anything in the original proposition. I remain of the opinion that the Bill can be improved by further discussion. It would also have been better if the Bill could be introduced in a better atmosphere. Many of the things that have been said about what the board is doing concern only what the board has done since last year. They are not embedded in the structure. Therefore, I am still minded to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Peter Luff: I speak for two principal reasons. The first and foremost is that my constituency lies at the intersection of two major waterways—the River Severn and the Worcester and Birmingham canal. That canal is the only thing that links me with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). It is right that I pay tribute to what British Waterways has done recently on that canal. There was major expenditure—perhaps overdue—on a project to dredge a section of the canal at Lowesmoor, and some important repair works at Diglis.
The river and the canal are important as resources for tourism, sporting facilities and recreational activities. As a


major narrowboat operator uses the canal, I feel that it is right to welcome the support that the board has given to a new promotional campaign to encourage the use of narrowboats for holidays. I also look forward with excitement to the time when the board's important plans to develop the Diglis canal basin come to fruition, providing a major fillip to the regeneration of my constituency.
The second reason why I support the Bill—here I have one eye on the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), although I have no pecuniary interest to declare —is that I have long taken an interest in marine issues, and have worked close with the British Marine Industries Federation. I want to inform the House of the federation's welcome for the general terms of the Bill, but also to express its single reservation.
I can now say that if it comes to the vote I shall support Second Reading. The federation is generally happy with the balance that the Bill now strikes, although there still needs to be careful scrutiny in Committee. Of its four parts, 39 clauses and three schedules, clause 27 still causes real concern. It is important to remember that boating interests have always supported the concept of the Bill, but they have had serious worries about some of the additional issues raised by the inclusion, without consultation, of certain provisions in the Bill.
I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken that, sadly, British Waterways does not always enjoy a reputation for a sympathetic approach to uts users. I suspect that that stems from the fact that it is not just a navigational authority, but a landlord. It has a monopoly position when negotiating with existing clubs and trade operators. It probably needs to make much more effort to foster a relationship of trust with those users, in the interests of our inland waterways system.
The Bill, although good and important in many ways, originally raised a number of concerns, but all those have now been satisfactorily dealt with bar one. We did not always think that that would be the case; it has been achieved by a process of hard negotiation. It has resulted in a happier position and a better Bill. We now have the undertakings and the statement of intent that we have always sought.
The users never set out to be petty or unreasonable in the concessions that they sought. They have always been aware of the costs involved and have been anxious not to cause undue expense to British Waterways, and therefore the taxpayer. We can only wish that there had been consultation before certain objectionable measures were included in the Bill. However, as I have said, there now remains only one outstanding concern, and that is clause 27.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) said, the history of canal construction is complex. Each required a canal Act to enable it to be constructed, which meant different concessions for each landowner. My hon. Friend cited some of those The clause would cancel those historic rights—such as the right to construct wharves, slipways, cuts and moorings for boats. The problem has been exacerbated by the lack of trust felt by many small entrepreneurs on the canal system towards British Waterways. It has to be said—and I understand it—that the British Waterways estates department justifiably has a remit to maximise profit, but that often leads to feelings of intimidation among small operators.
It is not surprising that there is still concern about the clause because it will affect not only the majority of freehold canal operators but all future ones. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) that it is profoundly un-Tory to cancel the rights of lords of the manor in such a cavalier way. Those rights permitted canalside landowners to establish their businesses by constructing facilities and using the canal in the course of their business. That ensured that the canal owner could not operate as a monopoly. Again, I look at the hon. Member for Bradford, South and see in clause 27 the shades of railway privatisation debates to come.
In recent times, ignorance of those rights, coupled with British Waterways' erosion of them, has resulted in exactly the unreasonable and coercive behaviour that the rights —some 200 years old—were designed to prevent. It is important to realise that, unlike British Waterways lessees, freehold businesses have no legal protection, such as is provided by the Landlord and Tenant Act or by arbitration.
We have heard tonight that an ombudsman will be established for the British Waterways board and its customers. That is a welcome development. In Committee, we may decide that the establishment of an ombudsman will provide sufficient reassurance about the extinguishment of the rights contained in clause 27. I hope that that proves to be so.
However, at present no ombudsman exists for the canal operator who feels that he is under duress from British Waterways. His rights under the enabling Acts offer the only security upon which he can rely. British Waterways is now seeking to extinguish even those rights. Until some alternative legislation or ombudsman is in place, those rights should not only remain but should be revitalised and given greater recognition through the Bill.
Modern-day businesses do not object to paying their way and contributing to British Waterways, providing that that contribution is fair and reasonable. British Waterways offered evidence to the Select Committee in another place on its reasons for wishing to extinguish those rights. Amendments will probably be tabled in Committee to satisfy those concerns while also giving comfort to the freehold businesses that they will be allowed to operate on the canals. I support most of the Bill's provisions. I hope that my concerns about clause 27 will be dealt with in Committee, perhaps through the establishment of an ombudsman or by some other method. I urge the House to support Second Reading.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I speak as an inland Waterways enthusiast and someone who has fallen into the Leeds and Liverpool canal at Foulridge and also in the River Calder, and it is not a particularly pleasant experience.
I declare an interest as a riparian owner. That sounds very posh, but as anyone who has seen my back garden can testify—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—that is not the case. I live at the side of the River Calder and I want the river to be fostered, developed and improved—as I believe it can be. There is tremendous potential on our rivers and inland waterways, both in west Yorkshire and elsewhere.
I am a founder member of the West Riding Narrowboat Co-operative, which celebrated 10 years of


existence only a few weeks ago. It is a tremendous example of collectivism in action. The co-operative has gone from strength to strength in owning boats and operating them on the inland waterways of both England and Wales. Therefore, I have been both a user and an enthusiastic supporter of inland waterways for many years and can take a user's perspective of the Bill.
I have supported the efforts in West Yorkshire to restore particular canals, such as the Barnsley canal which is partly in my constituency. I commend the efforts made in West Yorkshire and elsewhere. As the Minister said when he quoted from Waterways World, great strides have been made to restore neglected and abandoned waterways.
I am aware that initially there was strong opposition to some of the Bill's provisions. In particular, there was concern about the implications for various users not just of the waterways, but of facilities in the general vicinity such as towpaths. Cyclists, walkers and those who enjoy fishing have been concerned about the probable effects of clause 27. Many of those concerns were expressed in another place and Members from all parties have received numerous letters of concern. In particular, boat owners are concerned about the increased cost implications of insurance, safety and standards of boats that will be required under the Bill.
I would not argue against improving safety or environmental standards—I have seen pollution. I spent a holiday on a hired boat in the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), and I was appalled to see a hire base pumping raw sewage from hire boats directly into the canal that connects the two locks. I hope that that practice has long since ended. I raised that matter when the water privatisation Bill was passing through the House.
Many boat owners are concerned about the way in which, over the last eight years in particular, the cost of renting land and water has dramatically spiralled. In my constituency, owning a boat is not necessarily the preserve of the better-off. A number of my constituents are pensioners who are not particularly wealthy, but who spent many years' savings purchasing a small narrowboat or motor cruiser. They find that the cost of continuing a hobby to which they look forward in their retirement is excessive.
Many community groups also use the waterways. The West Riding Narrowboat Co-operative was originally formed by purchasing a boat owned by a group that offered intermediate treatment to youngsters on the edge of offending. There are many examples in West Yorkshire and elsewhere of people from deprived backgrounds, the physically handicapped, and others with different problems gaining tremendous personal benefit from holidays, weekends or even day trips on the inland waterways. We should not forget the important role played by such groups when considering legislation such as the Bill.
My constituents advise me that the cost of a cruising licence for the,Aire and Calder can be anything between £300 and £350 per year, per vessel. Mooring costs can be anything between £350 and £600 depending on the length of the craft. It is possible for boat owners and users on the

Aire and Calder to pay £1,000 annually before they set foot on the water—I mean, set out on a journey in their boat.
My constituents emphasise that they are receiving fewer and fewer services for that increased cost. They do not see that additional income being reinvested in improving the waterways in that area. The contrary is true. More and more work is being put out to private tender, with the involvement of non-experts in the highly skilled work of maintaining inland waterways.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend refers to a fear that has been expressed to me by canal users—that the old lengthman is disappearing. He was a skilled man who knew the canal and was able to take remedial action before anything drastic occurred. That occupation is dying out. There is now extensive use of private contractors who often do not have the expertise and background to do the work. They do a pretty poor job, and then more money must be spent later to remedy defects. Many canal users are expressing concern about the deterioration in maintenance standards, yet the Bill gives the British Waterways Board the power to prevent moorings at points that it considers unsuitable, perhaps because of that very lack of maintenance.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right. There are many examples in West Yorkshire of the deskilling of the waterways. I know a number of people who have worked on the inland waterways for many years. The skills, expertise and experience that they have acquired are such that they can anticipate problems—they do not have to be told what the problems will be. When we lose those people, they will be gone for ever. Private contractors are no substitute if they do not have the background to do a proper job.
I concede that a number of the original objections to the Bill have been met by the board during the Bill's progress through another place. Nevertheless, I emphasise that a number of serious concerns remain, and they have been raised today by hon. Members in all parts of the House. They must be addressed today or when the Bill goes into Committee.
Clause 23 states that the board shall
have regard to the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access to towing paths and open land and especially to places of natural beauty".
The Bill does not clearly state that fees for access to towpaths will not be permitted by the legislation. Although the Minister and the promoter have given reassurances, it is unsatisfactory that they are not written into the Bill at this late stage.
There are real fears that access will be restricted. We saw that happen with the water privatisation legislation, which restricts access to areas of open country, including in Yorkshire, where the public were once free to walk, exercise and enjoy the fresh air of the countryside. We are seeing also the re-emergence of battles over access to open moorland that I thought had been won in the 1930s.
Private owners are increasingly restricting ramblers from free access to areas that walkers have used for generations. The area between my home and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), on the other side of the Pennines, is at the centre of one such argument. The Derbyshire border has been the


subject of campaigns over many years. It worries me that, at some future date, the public will have to pay for the basic right to walk along inland waterways towpaths.
As to clause 25, I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks concerning privatisation, but having seen what has happened to the waterways over the past decade or so, I believe that commercial obligations on the BWB will increasingly take precedence over its waterways responsibilities. We have seen already the pressure from the Exchequer to reduce the money that the board receives from central funding, which led to huge increases in the costs to users of the waterways. That has also placed pressure on the BWB to consider new ways of raising money, other than by doing the job that it was established to do.
Despite the Minister's categorical assurance today, I believe that privatisation will be the next step and that the Bill is a thinly disguised paving measure. I hope that I am wrong, but given the Government's record, and the direction of almost every measure that they have introduced, I see no reason to believe that privatisation will not be the end result. I suspect that I shall be proved right.
It is clearly the Government's intention to commercialise the BWB even further, to enable it to pull out even more from state funding of the inland waterways system. That saddens me, but it comes as no surprise. Even more worrying is the fact that the Government have no coherent political strategy for the use of our inland waterways, and the immense potential offered by our rivers and canals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred to the transport potential; in my part of West Yorkshire, that potential is immense —or would be, if people would take the trouble to sit down and think it out. Of course, the process is slower, but there is not necessarily any need to rush: different cargoes require different time scales. I am saddened by the increasing movement of goods from rail, canal and river to road, which is merely building up a huge environmental problem for the future.
There is also an economic potential. Tourism, for instance, has hardly been mentioned. My area, like others, was an industrial area until the Government came to office. We used to have coal mines, but we no longer see coal being transported on the canals; thanks to the Government, we now have industrial museums. All the same, waterways tourism has huge potential in such areas as west Yorkshire, if only the Government would recognise it. I am thinking of the restoration of canals such as the Huddersfield narrow, the Rochdale and the Barnsley.
A few years ago, the Inland Waterways Association carried out research into how much people spend when travelling through areas such as mine on boats. It found that they spend money in shops, supermarkets, restaurants and public houses. People help such areas by investing in them. I believe that I shall live to see the real achievement of the Pennine ring in the next 10 or 20 years—the achievement of a ring of waterways that will enable people to spend a fortnight travelling through the south and the north Pennines. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the finest part of Britain. It is about time more people had the privilege of viewing it from the local waterways.
British waterways have an immense amount to offer. It saddens me that the Bill does not address the real political challenge.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Many of the actions to which the hon. Gentleman refers happen all the time, without requiring the powers in the Bill. For instance, the money that has gone into the Aire and Calder in Leeds—a splendid development, in my view—was invested as a result of the "corridor studies" that the British Waterways Board has promoted precisely because it recognises the leisure potential involved. I am keen on such investment in my constituency: the Grand Union canal has a good deal of leisure potential, and there has been considerable co-operation between the BWB and local authorities.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. Although I should like to be able to support the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot do so, for the simple reason that I have grave suspicions. I fear that the hidden agenda will prove profoundly unhealthy from the point of view of those who believe deeply in the potential of the waterways.

Mr. John Bowis: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He implied that his constituents occasionally tried to walk on water; he also confessed that, on occasion, he had got rather closer to our inland waterways than he had intended.
I, too, am keen to protect the interests of those who live, work and take their leisure on the waterways. When I served on a London borough council in a riparian area, I sought to protect the interests of houseboat owners on the Thames; I find that the same issues crop up now that I represent a different riparian borough. I was pleased to hear some of the points raised today, including the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister. As hon. Members have pointed out, the British Waterways Board has made a number of concessions—both while the Bill was in another place, and while the House of Commons was consulting.
Like others, I especially welcome the steps towards greater safety, environmental improvements and the river-worthiness of vessels. Ultimately, lives are at stake —both those of boat owners and those of the people with whom they may come into contact—and I am thankful for the requirement for third party insurance.
I hope that the Minister can confirm my understanding of the position, which has gone a long way towards resolving the problem that led me to put my name to the blocking motion. I feel that, broadly speaking, the inclusion of that requirement in the Bill should be sufficient. My hon. Friend suggested that 90 per cent. of boat owners now have insurance, and I do not think that any hon. Member would think it unreasonable for the other 10 per cent. to acquire it. After all, if an accident occurs, there must be a cost to others, including the boat owners themselves; if a boat sinks, there will be the cost of clearing it.
Why have such people not already taken out insurance? Perhaps they have not thought about it; perhaps they considered it unnecessary, because they have not been required to insure so far. Perhaps they had difficulty in obtaining insurance. There's the rub; such difficulties can arise for a number of reasons. Perhaps boat owners have had problems in shopping around; that is the suggestion of the British Waterways Board.
Perhaps the boat in question is not deemed a good insurance risk—that is where I start to have my worries


—or perhaps the owner is not considered a fit and proper person by the underwriters, who are therefore reluctant to insure the boat under that ownership.

Sir Russell Johnston: There is another, more straightforward, reason: the owners may consider it too expensive in relation to what they perceive as a low risk.

Mr. Bowis: That may well be the reason why they have not taken out insurance in the past, but I suggest that it is right that they should be required to do so in future. What must concern us is the extent to which British Waterways should involve itself in the search for or the provision of that insurance underwriting.
I have raised the subject because I am concerned that British Waterways should not interfere or involve itself with the insurance market, given that there are already enough brokers and underwriters to provide insurance for anybody who should be on the waterways. Of course, someone who should not be on the waterways will not be able to obtain insurance, and the obtainability of insurance will to some extent provide a guide to whether a craft and its owner are right and proper users of the waterways and constitute no risk to others.
In response to my concerns and those of my constituents, British Waterways has done its best to reassure me on the subject. It has clearly said that its concern is only with the older boats, which might be driven off the waterways if they could not obtain insurance. I do not think that that is right. Older boats may cost more to insure, but insurance will be available if the risk is reasonable. Older boats in respect of which insurance is not available should perhaps be kept as museum pieces and taken off the water so as not to place those using them, or other people, at risk.
I do not believe that most older boats will come into that category. I know of houseboats on the Thames dating back to the Dunkirk crossing which are perfectly adequately maintained and insured. It should be possible to obtain insurance for most boats of whatever age.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is placing a great deal of faith in the insurance companies' ability to make an assessment. He is referring largely to narrowboats on canals. I know of a case in an area of activity much more important than that, in which an insurance inspector did not know the difference between steel and cast iron, and overlooked very important risks as a result. The idea that insurance companies are absolute assurers of risk is often not borne out in practice.

Mr. Bowis: From time to time, new risks may arise, and it may be difficult to find an expert who can give the right insurance advice. But that is not an issue under the Bill.
My only question concerns the extent to which British Waterways should be involved in insurance. I am anxious that, wherever possible, it should leave such matters to the experts and should neither set up an insurance scheme of its own nor make recommendations as between different insurers. British Waterways has told me clearly:
we have no ambitions whatsoever to enter the insurance market".
No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will be able to confirm that that is the case. As I understand it, British Waterways merely seeks to compile a list of underwriters—and I hope brokers,

because brokers often have schemes; I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding at this point—who offer third party insurance policies, and to make it available on request.
That is much more reasonable than what was originally implied, which was that there might be a scheme—a proposal about which many in the insurance world were concerned. If someone is having difficulty finding insurance, he should first be asked, "Have you looked in the boating and canal publications?", as those publications contain many advertisements for insurance. If people have tried that and still cannot obtain insurance, perhaps a list could be sent to them as a last resort.
I wanted to put on record British Waterways' assurance that it is not interested in entering the insurance market with its own scheme or in pushing one policy as opposed to another—in other words, that it does not have plans to interfere with the insurance market. That assurance having been given—again, my hon. Friend has been nodding as I have listed the requirements—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can make it clear that the board's intention is to provide information, which I think is only reasonable. I do not think that anyone has put up a case against compulsory third party insurance, for obvious reasons, but not everyone knows who precisely offers such cover, and to that extent the provision will be advantageous.

Mr. Bowis: That basic information makes for a meeting of minds.
I am very much in favour of the insurance requirement, which is to the benefit of everyone operating on our waterways. On the basis of that and the assurances I have been given, I am prepared to withdraw my objection to the progress of the Bill, and to support its advance into Committee.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I should like to give a little history lesson to the House about my constituency. Ellesmere Port was named after the town of Ellesmere in Shropshire as a result of the canal links that joined the two towns. The canals, of course, then joined the network in the midlands, going through Wolverhampton—which still has a link with my constituency through the name of one of my wards—to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The network is extensive. At the confluence of the narrow canal, where it meets the Mersey ship canal, is the Ellesmere Port boat museum, which I hope that many hon. Members will take the trouble to visit. I believe that the Minister has already visited it, although I am not sure whether he paid his full entry fee. I will collect it from him on the way out if he did not.
The museum is a centre of national excellence, where pieces of Britain's heritage have been put together to form an important collection of vessels, which, had British Waterways had its way at an earlier stage, would have run the risk of being destroyed and lost to our museum. The collection includes vessels that were horse-drawn, steel and wooden, as well as sailing vessels connected with the Mersey, and steam vessels from both the canal and river network. It also includes an important complex of


buildings, which have been preserved by the efforts of a large voluntary network of organisations, without whom Britain would have lost a great deal.
Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the special report of the House of Lords mentions the proposed panel, to which reference has been made. Paragraph 19 starts:
Fifth, petitioners expressed concern about historic craft.
I want to concentrate specifically on historic craft.
It has been put to me by organisations such as the Wooden Canal Craft Trust—to which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred—that there are probably a further 200-plus vessels of potential historic importance located on the sides of canals, which, if not taken into account by a proper amendment to the Bill, could be lost to our heritage. Often, those vessels appear to the uninitiated like a pile of planks, old wooden hulks, but often such pieces of timber reflect important parts of our heritage.
It always strikes me when I see the crowds of people walking across the flagstones in Westminster Hall, and looking at the places where various people were laid in state, that the wonderful craftsmanship in the hall is often forgotten, particularly that of the ceiling where great carpentry skills are exhibited.
Many of the hulks are lying by the waterside and are submerged. The fact that they are submerged actually preserves them. The idea of somebody getting a crane and hoiking them out of the water, and leaving them on the canalside or towing them away, is sacrilege. They need to be carefully preserved.
In the 1970s, when I lived on the south coast, I watched with great interest the work to raise the Mary Rose from the seabed of the Solent. That task took immense skill, great chemical knowledge and knowledge of preservation techniques, many of which are still in development. It would be wrong to allow such craft to be lost to our heritage by raising them and then leaving them at the canal side.
Reference has been made to boats that may not meet standards laid down by regulation. As an experienced boat user, I would argue strongly for improved standards of maintenance and stricter controls for environmental and safety reasons in the construction and use of vessels, whether on canals, rivers or the open sea. Recently, there have been serious accidents when the maintenance of the vessels involved was not taken into account. We should adopt the principles that were applied when the MOT certificate for cars was first introduced. It is important that vessels built before a predetermined date should not be subject to any of the proposed changes. The final sentence of paragraph 19 of the House of Lords report states:
One petitioner responded by saying that historic craft should be exempted as of right, and not at the Board's discretion.
I whole-heartedly agree, because the board is riot the proper determining body for matters of national heritage.
It has been said that insurance should be a criterion. A number of Conservative Members who are experts in these matters could perhaps advise us, but I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to obtain a fire risk policy on this building, and the same could be said of many vessels, certainly those built before the turn of the century. I understand the.argument that vessels which are in use need third party liability cover but one can take the issue to ridiculous extremes. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that vessels which did not meet certain

standards should be removed from the canals and placed in a museum. That reflects badly on his views on the place of historic vessels.

Mr. Bowis: We are talking about third party insurance, not insurance to preserve or protect ancient craft. We would not allow a veteran or vintage car to travel on the roads without such insurance, so it is reasonable to require vessels of whatever age to have the same cover because there is a risk to other people.

Mr. Miller: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and, of course, such matters must be taken into account. I hope that he will extend his expertise and ensure that every member of the Wooden Canal Craft Trust can receive proper insurance cover through his expert knowledge. I am sure that they would be glad to do so at a proper, not inflated, price. However, I take the hon Gentleman's point.
The central issue is whether British Waterways should decide matters of national heritage. We have heard that vessels that were built without an after-rail would fall foul of the regulations.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The intention is not that the B'WB decides the definition of a historic boat, but that the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council should do so. It comprises people who represent different interests and it is widely acknowledged to be an extremely skilful and expert body on inland waterways which should draw up the criteria. That may meet with the hon. Gentleman's approval. I remember attending an enjoyable meeting of the IWAAC in his constituency.

Mr. Miller: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has visited my constituency—

Mr. Ian McCartney: Was he canvassing?

Mr. Miller: —as long as he was not canvassing. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has beaten me to it.
The hon. Gentleman's point is set out in paragraph 18. The panel does not comprise only the board. However, the paragraph does not spell out precisely the make up of the panel. It says of the board:
It proposed that the panel should consist of two Board appointees plus representatives of IWAAC, the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Industries Federation. Some petitioners argued that the panel should include representatives of houseboat owners and persons with practical experience of wooden craft.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: rose—

Mr. Miller: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to tell me that such people would be in a majority.

Mr. Jones: There are two different points. One is about the criteria for historic boats and the other is about appeals when boat standards are not up to scratch. I made it clear that the BWB would be in a minority on the panel for the latter. There are two different points.

Mr. Miller: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, paragraph 19 says:
Applications for exemptions will be subject to the appeals procedure described in paragraph 18.
That brings us back to the panel. I accept that the BWB would potentially be a minority on the panel, but I am not


satisfied that the Bill contains a requirement for a necessary level of expertise and historical knowledge about old vessels to be incorporated into the panel.
It would be wrong not to ensure that every effort is made to keep such vessels not only in good condition, but in good working order and in use on the canals. The boats could help to preserve parts of the canal network through the nature of their use—a different type of use from the use of modern boats and of the pleasure craft currently in vogue. Old craft are an important part of our heritage. My single reservation is that the board has not gone far enough and that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has not gone far enough. The panel does not go far enough in ensuring that the need to protect our national heritage of boats is met.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for missing the initial debate on sport. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) suggested that I was in a tired and emotional state. I was in a tired and emotional state, but that was not why I missed the debate on sport. I had to deal with a pressing family matter involving someone who was seriously ill. I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the victory yesterday of your home team, Featherstone. I hope that next year, we can welcome you to Central Park, after which you will leave in a tired and emotional state.
In the last Parliament, I was one of those involved in the blocking motion in respect of the initial attempt that British Waterways made to introduce the Bill. Once one becomes involved in a blocking motion, it is rather like a parliamentary squeeze of the goolies. Once one is involved in such a motion, discussions take place and, by a hard press or a tweak of the blocking motion, there can at least be a closing of minds in respect of some of the issues on which there were previously disagreements in relation to the Bill's sponsors or the organisation involved.
From the outset, when I was involved in the blocking motion, I made it clear to anyone who wished to listen that I was a strong supporter of British Waterways, and have been so for historical and political reasons. For most of my childhood, I lived 25 yards from the towpath of the Forth and Clyde canal. Indeed, I spent much of my formative years in that canal and was usually dragged out by my mother. I spent my holidays on the towpath of the Monklands canal, which unfortunately has been filled in and is now the M8 which divides Glasgow north and south, east and west.
I represent Makerfield, through the centre of which runs the Leeds and Liverpool canal. I was a member of the development committee for the Wigan pier development which involved British Waterways, the local authority and other organisations. They brought together resources and talents to deal with a once derelict site which, three years ago, became the European tourist attraction of the year.
I want to have a close working relationship with British Waterways and to understand the reasons for the Bill. Perhaps tonight we should have been debating a Government Bill on how we can best develop—and not simply protect—British Waterways, both the organisation itself and what it stands for.
British Waterways is one of the nation's greatest heritages and tributes. The waterways are one of the most wonderful opportunities which the nation gives up at its peril. For decades, we have failed as a nation to invest appropriately in our waterways or to give the resources to the British Waterways Board to enhance the development of our waterways.
Over the past 10 years, the Government have increasingly put pressure on British Waterways to find the meagre resources that it already gets from the Government from other sources. British Waterways is between a stone and hard surface. On the one hand, it must, and quite rightly so, enhance the waterways for the reasons that have been outlined, but on the other, it does not have the financial resources to do that.
I blocked the Bill in the previous Parliament for several major reasons, one of which related to the environment and a need for British Waterways and the legislation to set out clearly a concept for wildlife and heritage and a plan that would protect, enhance and develop the wildlife and heritage associated with the waterways. The 2,000 miles of British waterways should be part of a linear national park.
The inappropriate sale of assets that took place a number of years ago—some of those sales were highly controversial—took place when the original Bill was introduced. For that reason, many hon. Members believed that the Bill then was no more than a fig leaf to cover the introduction of privatisation. The British Waterways Board handled that situation appallingly badly in relation to the timing and political explanations.
The board, in its panic to get rid of some of its priceless assets, undermined its credibility in the House and with the users of the inland waterways. Many of the board's efforts since then, both inside and outside this place, have been directed at repairing that damage. It has gone a long way towards achieving that. However, let us be frank about it: much of the pressure for the changes which have occurred resulted from blocking motions supported by hon. Members working with groups outside the House.
Funding is important. If we accept the concept that British Waterways should develop the wildlife, the heritage, the tourism, the transportation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred and the employment opportunities for those who work in BW—there is an opportunity for BW to open derelict and unused buildings and land for alternative uses to develop employment in constituencies such as mind—we must examine funding and resources for that development. It was not clear that the previous Bill was simply at attempt to milk the users of canals for the short-term underfunding by the Department of the Environment, with no resources available for the long-term development of the canal system. Therefore, we look forward to receiving assurances that additional resources will be part and parcel of the development of the canal system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised the matter of unemployment. Unemployment is important for two reasons—the need to protect employment opportunities for those who work for British Waterways and the need to ensure that responsibility for the core skilled work force remains part and parcel of its overall duties. When the original Bill was introduced, some of us were deeply worried that many of the skilled work force would continue to be replaced through compulsory competitive tendering.
I am not opposed to ensuring that British Waterways gets value for money from its staff—just as the unions are not. However, we want to ensure that the Bill is not used as a trojan horse—a vehicle for removing large parts of the core skilled work force. Perhaps the sponsors of the Bill can tell the House whether the agreements reached some months ago between management and the trade unions on employment rights and the nature of the core skilled work force will remain in force if the Bill goes on the statute book.
I am concerned that British Waterways does not have a true conception of what is required to be done in co-operation with local authorities, other groups in the private sector and the voluntary sector to bring into use derelict land and buildings for a whole series of employment and tourist initiatives, and the need to have added value for its work.
Many vested interests oppose the Bill, such as marina development companies and people with an interest in maintaining a low income from their activities. I do not support those vested interests because I sincerely believe that, if British Waterways is to flourish and develop the sort of strategy that I have outlined, we need to ensure that BW gets part of the added-value income from the development of a canal system. It would be an outrage if we were to force on BW a development strategy involving the use of derelict land and buildings and if the profits from that exercise went to organisations outside BW. To make up the shortfall, British Waterways would attack in financial terms many of the people to which my hon. Friends the Member for Wakefield and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred.
We are looking for a partnership on the Bill There must be an arrangement whereby everyone involved, except those vested interests to which I referred, clearly knows that the resources that are taken from the use of the canal system are pumped back into its development, providing employment opportunities, improving the environment and protecting the wildlife and heritage along the 2,000 miles of system as it stands at present.
I am sure that the Bill will be given its Second Reading tonight, but in getting its Second Reading, I hope that its supporters do not underestimate those of us who have objected to it but have some concessions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said, we want significant improvements to be made when it goes into Committee. We want British Waterways to make genuine attempts to deal with outstanding issues which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening.
We also want British Waterways to give some commitments about the sale of assets and to say exactly how they understand it. What are its proposals for its portfolio of land, buildings and other assets? Does it intend each of its regions to draw up a transparent business and development plan? Such a plan should be a public document into which organisations in each region can have an input. I do not suggest that British Waterways should have to give away all its business intentions, but it must give a commitment to public accountability in the development of its core business activities and its strategy to deal with under-utilised land and buildings.
The communities in each region must be involved in developing plans in the same way as local people are involved in the development of local authorities' heritage and wildlife proposals and unitary development plans. It is

the same concept. It is well understood by the public. If British Waterways integrated such a concept into its development and business plans, many of the doubts that people express about its intentions would disappear because people would be part and parcel of the development of British Waterways as both a business and a protector of the nation's 2,000 linear miles of inland waterway and canal.
Employment opportunities are vital to Members of Parliament who represent constituencies through which canals pass that have large under-utilised hinterlands attached to them. In my constituency, large areas within the confines of the Leeds and Liverpool canal system could be used to create employment, enhance the activities along the canal and renovate derelict land. The activities of British Waterways, local authorities and private sector developers could be married up to ensure that many of the areas that I represent have a development plan for the next few years so that people can see the way ahead to creating new employment opportunities associated with businesses along the canal corridor.
British Waterways should also be involved in activities in the local community. Appropriate derelict sites could be made available for housing developments. Far too often in the past, developments on the waterside have been at the behest of those with the financial resources to use the environment as part of their back garden. I do not include my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield in that—I have been in his back garden.
I utter a word of caution. In the sale of assets that will surely follow enactment of the Bill, I do not want to see in my constituency developments of housing in areas that are outwith the reach of my constituents, whether it is private or voluntary sector housing. British Waterways should link with local authorities and housing associations to ensure that housing developments provide low-cost housing so that the local community has access to it. It should not merely provide added value for yuppies with weekend condominiums in my constituency, who use their postal vote to vote against me in elections and have no concern for the rest of the community outside the holiday period. I want some clear commitments from British Waterways on such issues.
In the discussions that I have had with British Waterways at regional and national level, its representatives have been nothing other than honest and above board in their dealings. I have no reason to believe that they have ever made any commitments that they do not intend to keep. However, I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) gives a commitment that the Bill benefits not just the British Waterways Board, but its employees.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have no complaint about the fact that we are debating inland waterways today, but I believe that it is probably a futile debate. I do not see how the Bill can proceed further through the House. The first requirement of the Standing Committee that will examine the Bill will be to satisfy itself that the Bill's objectives cannot be achieved in any other way. Since the last Parliament passed the legislation on transport and works, the Bill could now proceed in a different way.
I know that the understanding was that private Bills before the House before that piece of legislation was introduced should be allowed to continue their passage, but the British Waterways Bill has been lying around for a long time and should not be allowed to proceed. I hope that the Committee's first action will be vigorously to examine the Bill. I hope that it will conclude that the Bill must be thrown out because it falls outwith the Standing Orders of the House, in that it can be promoted through legislation other than a private Bill.
If we are to proceed with it, the House must insist that the concessions given today and in writing by the board are contained in the Bill. I was always told that I should never trust a statement by a Minister when debating a Bill, as Ministers could come and go, and if I wanted to be safe I should ensure that commitments were written into the legislation.
On the subject of private legislation, I was told that an undertaking given by a promoter was as good as an amendment to the Bill. However, I have had a bitter experience, as an undertaking given during the passage of the Bill to set up the Manchester metro—that my constituents would not suffer a fares increase—was not observed. When challenged, those representing Manchester metro argued that they had not given the undertaking, which was given by the original promoter, and that the two were separate organisations. When the Committee studies the Bill, it is important that any concessions should be written into it.
Why is the Bill necessary? We are told that there are two vital safety matters—one involving people at the side of the canal and one involving boats. I find that suggestion amazing. From 1947, when inland waterways were nationalised, until the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, no one appears to have encountered the problem of not being able to carry out necessary work in the event of possible flooding. We were given the example of the recent flooding of the Lancaster canal, but we were not told of any problems in obtaining access. The landowner sensibly allowed workmen on to the land to carry out the remedial work to protect the property.
As I understand it, there is not one example of people being denied access. It is important to ensure that access is available for people to make the canal safe and to stop further flooding, but that has not posed a practical problem. If it had, why was a narrow Bill not introduced as soon as that problem occurred in order to solve it? That argument is an excuse for the Bill's other provisions.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am not sure about access being refused, but I certainly know of examples of people having to pay through the nose because some rather greedy landowners saw an emergency as an opportunity to extract large sums of money. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not satisfactory.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that people should not extract greedy sums, but not everyone agrees about what "greedy" means. Changing the law is not necessarily the best way to deal with the problem.
Then there is the question of the safety of boats, and especially of third party insurance. We have heard no real horror stories to suggest why that needed to be dealt with

urgently. It has certainly not been established by the leisurely fashion in which negotiations on the relevant part of the Bill have taken place.
I want to concentrate on the problems of towpaths and the rights of way along them. Unfortunately, there is a hotch-potch of provision. When they came to register footpaths and bridleways, some local authorities took the view that there was no need to include towpaths along canals in the definitive maps, because they were part of the national heritage so there was no need to record them. Other local authorities did record them. The results often depended on voluntary bodies. In any event, some towpaths and bridleways, and the public rights of way along them, have been recorded, and others have not.
People outside are worried that they may lose the right to go along towpaths. I know that certain undertakings have been given—that there will be no charging or restriction of access along towpaths, although this may not apply in certain dockland areas. I should like that written into the Bill.
A conflict of interests is involved. Fishermen use canal towpaths near my constituency; other people walk along the towpaths; boating communities, some of whose members use bikes to travel along towpaths, are also involved; others again need to use towpaths to get their boats through locks. The interests of horse riders and mountain bikers must also be taken into consideration. Balancing all these interests is difficult, and I should like to be sure that rationing towpath use as between the various groups will be done without introducing charges. I hope that words to that effect will be included in the legislation before it goes any further.
Several hon. Members have referred to historic boats, and two of my constituents are very worried about this aspect. In negotiations, it took a long time to extract any undertakings, and the Bill's promoters could go further to reassure these people.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's categorical assurance that the Government will not push privatisation, but I remain a little worried that the BWB might sell off bits of its land, particularly on sections of the canal that are closed.
The old Stockport branch of the Ashton canal goes through my constituency. It was handed over to the city of Manchester and to Stockport in the early 1970s, before I represented Stockport, North. Manchester decided to keep it as a right of way, but filled in the canal. Stockport filled in the canal and broke the right of way. A group is trying to reopen the canal and has a good chance of re-establishing the section through Manchester, but it will find when it reaches the Stockport boundary that the canal has been built across, and it will be virtually impossible to reopen it. That is sad, because it would have been an amenity for the area.
At Ashton, on the edge of the constituency, is the Portland basin. It has been nicely restored; the local authority and British Waterways have put in a great deal of work to make it attractive. The Huddersfield canal goes up the valley, but a section of it has been filled in and turned into a car park, and then partly built over.
All this breaks down our route heritage into small sections and destroys the unity of the longer routes. I hope that we will be given undertakings that there will be no such piecemeal selling off of canal sections.
I welcome the appointment of an ombudsman, but I am concerned about the proliferation of ombudsmen. There is


a danger of overlapping responsibilities; people are often confused about which ombudsman they should consult about problems. We should consider new legislation, so that all the roles could be incorporated in a national ombudsman. That would be better than setting up new ombudsmen for particular areas.

Sir Anthony Durant: I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner, which is looking at this matter. We are examining all aspects of the ombudsman's role.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Committee should not allow ad hoc ombudsmen to be set up. Part of the argument for not setting one up for housing associations is the legislation that is required to do it. There is a strong case for a private Member's Bill to allow the national ombudsmen to extend their powers by agreement to other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is keen to take part in the debate, so I shall conclude on the issue of crime. I am worried that more is not being done to stop crime along the canals. There have been some rather sad incidents, especially in the north-west, and some rather nasty vandalism. Such happenings cause great distress to boat owners and destroy part of our historic past. We must examine ways to improve security along the canals.
The Bill is unnecessary and many people who are keen to use the canals to best effect would be happy if it progressed no further. Perhaps we should consider simpler legislation or regulations.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his speed and precision, which enables me to speak about the Bill. He mentioned the Transport and Works Act 1992 as an alternative route to regulate the operation and use of canals. Earlier in the debate, I spoke about the enormous powers that the Bill gives British Waterways. Section 3(1) of the 1992 Act states:
The Secretary of State may make an order relating to, or to matters ancillary to—
(a) the construction or operation of an inland waterway in England and Wales;".
Scotland is clearly excluded. The Secretary of State can therefore instigate mooring regulations and access to canals. Section 3(1) (b) of the 1992 Act specifically gives power to make orders for the carrying out of works that 
intefere with rights of navigation in waters within or adjacent to England and Wales, up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea".
The comprehensive powers were deliberately incor-porated in the Transport and Works Act to simplify a complicated pattern of primary legislation contained in Acts that were passed over the past couple of hundred years. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and I were on the Committee that examined the Transport and Works Bill nd we knew that the present Bill was going through the Lords. In Committee, the overlapping of the two Bills was mentioned. The 1992 legislation has only just come into operation. We have not seen how effective it will be and a private Bill in parallel with the operation of that Act is entirely unnecessary.
Clause 13(2) deals with houseboats and is an example of the powers that the Bill will confer on the BWB. At least

12,000 people—probably a good many more—live on houseboats, so we are dnot dealing with a tiny section of the population. If things go wrong, and the BWB uses its powers badly, those 12,000 people could be in peril. When the Bill leaves this place, having gone through all its stages, it is out of our control. It has gone.
People may ask what the sponsor said, but the BWB could say that, while he may have given promises in good faith, it has the powers laid down in what will by then be an Act. Although they gave their assurances in good faith, the chairman and the managing director of the board may have retired by then, and different people will be in charge. All that will be left will be the Act of Parliament, so people will turn to it. When houseboat owners complain that their conditions have been changed, the BWB will be entitled to say that it has the power to do that, because, as clause 13(2) says:
The Board may from time to time following consultations with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and such organisations as appear to the Board to represent a substantial number of such owners of houseboats as may be affected by the proposed further general terms prescribe such further general terms as they think fit, in addition to or in substitution for those set out in the said Schedule 1, and any houseboat certificate issued or renewed after that date
shall be on such terms.
That means that the House of Commons—apparently it has been agreed down the Corridor—is giving the BWB power to alter all of schedule 1, which is a considerable part of the Bill running over two and a half pages of close text. The BWB, a quango, can remove from primary legislation all that text because the House of Commons will have given it that power. I do not accept that proposal.
I do not accept that Ministers, who are at least accountable to some degree in that they come here and answer questions and occasionally drift across to take part in debates—

Mr. Don Dixon: I would not go that far.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is raising qualifications and reservations. I have plenty of those, but Ministers are, to some extent, accountable to the House.
I can recall when a rumour went round that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was to announce an increase in council rents. Hon. Members exercised a mediaeval right to declare when Parliament should be closed and blocked the Bar of the House. Many said that that was a terrible thing to do, but the left, the right and the centre of the Labour party—the broad church in operation—stood there, preventing Black Rod from getting through. Lo and behold, after a lot of consultation and a lot of raised eyebrows, the right hon. Member for Henley made his statement about council rents. That was accountability. That was democracy in action. It might have been a bit rough and tumble, but it worked.
I would not give Ministers the right to change primary legislation. All too often, the Government introduce what are called Henry VIII clauses because he cut off the heads of his wives and Ministers are given the opportunity to cut off parts of Acts.
I do not think that such powers should be handed to Ministers, so I certainly do not think that an outside body should be given the power to remove sections of legislation that this House has considered and which imposes conditions that we think are reasonable. If we decide to pass legislation on a vote, we should not put in the hands of an outside body the power to remove sections of it.
I am in favour of public bodies, but the truth is that canal users mistrust British Waterways. I have a letter that has been passed to me by another hon. Member. It comes from a canal enthusiast and is dated 9 November 1992. It states:
As I write to you on Monday 9th November 1992, we record the closure of the upper reaches of the Ridgeacre Canal in the West Bromwich part of the Birmingham Canal Navigations to which our local canal belongs. This is a particularly sad day for the waterways enthusiasts and acts as a good example of the neglect of our canals and the lack of foresight shown by British Waterways making a complete mockery of their Waterways Charter.
I have other examples. I was recently told about the problems of a public house which is reached by a footbridge over the Llangollen canal. British Waterways, no doubt under pressure from the Government's failure to provide sufficient money to maintain a centuries-old system of waterways, decided that the annual charge for access to that public house over the canal should be increased from about £150 to £10,000. I now understand that, because of publicity, the charge has been reduced. However, when such a charge is made arbitrarily, it induces confusion and concern.

Sir Donald Thompson: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with some attention. Will he consider the contrary case, which is that the Government have just made available part of the derelect land grant for the reopening of canals? Does not that in some way balance the examples that he is giving?

Mr. Cryer: No. We are not talking about what the Government have done. If they are making available some derelict land clearance grant, that is all well and good. Of course, they are cutting a wide range of grants to local authorities. My point is that the Government are accountable to the House. If we give powers to a body such as British Waterways, which acts entirely as an authority on its own account, that accountability is then out of our reach. We can argue and ask questions about derelict land clearance grant; we cannot ask questions of the chairman of British Waterways—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:
The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 30.

Division No. 272]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John Q.
Coe, Sebastian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brandreth, Gyles
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den





Dykes, Hugh
Monro, Sir Hector


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Norris, Steve


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Patnick, Irvine


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gallie, Phil
Richards, Rod


Gillan, Cheryl
Riddick, Graham


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hanley, Jeremy
Spink, Dr Robert


Hannam, Sir John
Spring, Richard


Harris, David
Sproat, Iain


Heald, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stephen, Michael


Hendry, Charles
Streeter, Gary


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Sweeney, Walter


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thomason, Roy


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trend, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Legg, Barry
Walden, George


Leigh, Edward
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lidington, David
Waller, Gary


Lightbown, David
Waterson, Nigel


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


MacKay, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Maclean, David
Willetts, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Maitland, Lady Olga
Yeo, Tim


Mans, Keith



Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mates, Michael
Sir Anthony Durant and Mr. Alan Duncan.


Merchant, Piers



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bennett, Andrew F.
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Hanson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harvey, Nick
Rowlands, Ted


Hinchliffe, David
Skinner, Dennis


Johnston, Sir Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 27.

Division No. 273]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baldry, Tony






Bates, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hanley, Jeremy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harris, David


Booth, Hartley
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hendry, Charles


Bowis, John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Brazier, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bright, Graham
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Knapman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Burt, Alistair
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Carrington, Matthew
Legg, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Leigh, Edward


Clappison, James
Lidington, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Coe, Sebastian
Luff, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
MacKay, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Maclean, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Maitland, Lady Olga


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Mans, Keith


Devlin, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Merchant, Piers


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Sir Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Norris, Steve


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Page, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pike, Peter L.


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gallie, Phil
Richards, Rod


Gillan, Cheryl
Riddick, Graham


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)





Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trend, Michael


Spink, Dr Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spring, Richard
Walden, George


Sproat, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Streeter, Gary
Whittingdale, John


Sweeney, Walter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Willefts, David


Thomason, Roy
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Sir Anthony Durant and Mr. Alan Duncan.


Tredinnick, David





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bennett, Andrew F.
Lewis, Terry


Blunkett, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Etherington, Bill
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Hanson, David
Spearing, Nigel


Harvey, Nick



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Harry Barnes, and Mr. Andrew Miller.


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Mr. Arbuthnot.)

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 April],
That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question again proposed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The motion before the House is a technical one. The question is whether an amendment made to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in another place should be referred to the Examiner. The opportunity for the House to consider the amendment will be at a later stage.
This motion simply enables the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to consider whether the private business Standing Orders of the House have been complied with in respect of an amendment made by the Select Committee of another place. The amendment, contained in clause 22 of the Bill, relates to the land drainage powers of local authorities. It provides the clarification of these powers requested by a Select Committee of this House.
We agreed the terms with Cardiff city council, the land drainage authority most directly affected, and no one petitioned against the amendment when it was advertised in the press. It found favour with the Select Committee in another place, which amended the Bill accordingly. That is why we have this procedural motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Has the Minister already sat down? Does that mean that he is not willing to answer an inquiry? I will put it in the form of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. has the Minister finished?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: indicated assent.

Mr. Rowlands: We have been treated to a disgraceful performance from the Minister by any standards. He rattled through a few nonsensical remarks and is not willing—[Interruption.] It is a technical matter, but it has certain implications—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the House please settle down? I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rowlands: From the beginning, the generic titles of the Bills that have added up to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bills have created various procedural and constitutional problems. This Bill is unprecedented because it began as a private Bill with hybrid concepts and became a public Bill

after some considerable time. Therefore, we are dealing with an unprecedented case and we deserve rather more from the Minister.
We are perfectly entitled to probe what the technical motion means for the procedures of the House and the rights of hon. Members and, more important, the rights of the individuals affected by the Bill. From the beginning, bizarre procedural problems have arisen with such Bills, especially this public one. We now face another.
One of the problems is that, from the start, we have been in uncharted waters. Tragically —I hope that my hon. Friends agree—the passing of the Transport and Works Act 1992 after the introduction of the Bill meant that most such issues would in future rightly be dealt with by a local public inquiry. We have not been allowed to have that right; we have not been allowed to have a local public inquiry under the 1992 Act because the Bill started its progress before the Act came into force. We are left with a series of bizarre procedures, including this motion. The procedure means that we must now refer to the Examiners an amendment which has not yet been agreed by the other place and which has not gone through all the procedures in the other place.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that in Committee we considered whether the amendment would re-hybridise the Bill? I am sure that that is a partial explanation for the brevity of the Minister's speech. In Committee, he was asked:
Does the Minister accept that the amendment will in effect re-hybridise the Bill?
The Minister replied:
No sir. I urge the Committee not to pursue the amendment.
The Minister will have to eat his words tonight, which is why he kept them to a minimum.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has again demonstrated the Minister's appalling performance. My hon. Friend's research in this respect is always assiduous. I had not spotted that reference, although I was a member of the Committee. However, I remember a number of probing arguments in Committee about the procedural aspects of the Bill. The Minister made bland and minimal speeches, as he has this evening. We are entitled to feel angry about the way in which the Minister introduced the motion.
We are asked to send to the Examiners an amendment that has been tabled in another place to a Bill that has not yet completed all its proceedings in another place. The other place may decide that it wants to send the amendment to the Examiners. Why should we decide in a Pavlovian reaction that because the other place decides to refer the amendment to the Examiners, we should do the same simultaneously?
As I understand parliamentary procedures, the amendment could be lost on Report in the other place and it could be amended at any subsequent stage in the other place. Although the Bill has not completed all its stages in the other place, we are being asked to refer the amendment to the Examiners. We can rightly object on principle to the notion that we should act in a Pavlovian fashion.
What precedents are there for behaving in such a fashion? There is one in my memory—the Channel Tunnel Bill. The only time such a motion was moved was during


the proceedings on that Bill. It is worth reminding the House what happened on the previous occasion when this procedural device was adopted.
A Transport Minister came to the Dispatch Box in the 1985–86 Session and rattled through the same nonsense we have just heard. The words were almost identical. We were told that the motion was nothing more than a technical, procedural motion. We were told that it would enable the amendment to be referred to the Examiners who, in due course, would report back. We were told that the amendment would then be referred to the Standing Orders Committee and that everyone should happily accept the process.
I remind hon. Members, especially those who were not here at the time, what happened when the procedure was used previously. A Minister moved the motion in terms identical to those used by the Minister today. On that occasion, the Minister told the House that the motion was technical and that it did not matter very much. He said that the substance of the issue was irrelevant and that the motion simply allowed the matter to be examined to discover whether it had offended our Standing Orders.
That kind of explanation is a fiction because we all know that on this occasion the alteration in the other place has already affected and offended our Standing Orders. If the Minister had been willing to allow an intervention, he would have had to admit that it cannot be argued that, as a result of the change in the other place, our Standing Orders will not be complied with. Therefore, the Standing Orders Committee will have to report to us on the matter.
The last precedent was serious because we were told by a Minister that the procedure was innocuous. However, the Standing Orders Committee reported that the amendment did not comply with our Standing Orders and actually recommended that we should not dispense with our Standing Orders. Five days after the last occasion when such a motion was moved, the House was invited to overrule the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee and, after a vote, the decision of the Standing Orders Committee was overruled. The Government rode roughshod over a specific recommendation from our own Standing Orders Committee.
Irrespective of where we stand in relation to the argument about the Cardiff bay barrage, we should be squeamish about that last precedent. I tried to obtain one simple assurance from the Minister. If the Examiners find in respect of this motion—as I suspect that they must—that the change in the other place means that it does not comply with our Standing Orders, and if the matter then goes to the Standing Orders Committee and that Committee finds as it did in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill—that it did not comply, and also did not recommend that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with—will the Minister assure us that he and the Government will not try to override the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee?
As the Minister refused to allow me to obtain that simple assurance, will he give us that assurance now? Way back in 1987, the House was bamboozled by a Minister who said that the issue did not matter, but the Government then came back to the House and refused to accept the Committee's recommendation.
We object strongly to the cheap and silly way in which the Minister introduced the motion. He refused to allow me to intervene to seek that simple assurance. I invite the Minister to intervene in my speech and assure me that the

Government will not do what they did in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill, which is the only precedent that we have, and that the Government will not try to override any recommendations from the Standing Orders Committee?
The Minister either does not know or he does not wish to comment. Irrespective of the argument, we are not willing to be treated to such silly and petty behaviour from the Minister. Therefore, we must be concerned and squeamish about the exercise of such a procedure in this way, given that we have only one precedent and that not a happy one.
I was interested to read the debates on the last occasion when this issue arose. There were two debates. In the first debate, a number of hon. Members raised objections to the motion. They decided that the rights of individuals should not be overridden by a procedure of the kind that we have been asked to accept. The only vote that took place on such a motion was in the 1987 session—I apologise for not being there for that vote, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was present and voted against the motion—as did the Labour Deputy Chief Whip because, I assume, he sensed the constitutional or procedural issues involved.
Subsequently, when the House was faced with a recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee that it should not dispense with the Standing Orders relating to private Members Bills, and the Government sought to override the recommendation, there was a substantive debate about the rights of individuals. Indeed, if one reads that debate one genuinely senses that the House was expressing the view of many affected parties—some would have benefited but some would not.
In the case of the channel tunnel, the debate centred on the position of Mr. Patterson. Hon. Members from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) spoke with great force and passion about the rights of the individual, which could be overridden by procedural devices of the sort that we have been asked to agree to on the nod. For that reason, I object to the motion. The way in which the Minister introduced it was disgraceful.
One of the tragedies of the debate is that, since Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill, the House has passed legislation which would have allowed many of the arguments to be raised at the public inquiry and local inquiry levels. There are public expenditure consequences that the House should rightly debate. I should like the Minister to tell us whether a project such as the channel tunnel would have been subject to the Transport and Works Act 1992 if it had been in force.
We have had to act as a quasi-public inquiry, although such issues should properly have been heard and debated at a local public inquiry. If there were amendments of the sort that we face today, the Minister would have required a public inquiry at which people's rights could be protected cheaply and effectively rather than through the elaborate procedure of a private Bill.
It is sad that the people involved have not had the benefit of a public inquiry. Some Labour Members argued for an inquiry in a debate on a major amendment to the Bill. We said that such issues should be subject to a form of local public inquiry. If I remember correctly, we argued that case forcefully. As a result of not having that procedure, we are left in the bizarre position of having to examine an amendment which has been carried in another place.
What is worse, the procedure on the channel tunnel created a precedent in that, if the Standing Orders Committee recommends that we should not dispense with

Standing Orders Nos. 10 and 11, the Government will come back and try to override that recommendation, as happened in 1987.
For those reasons, therefore, we have every right, first, to object to the manner in which the Minister introduced the motion, and secondly, justifiably to express the queasiness that we should all feel about the bizarre prodedural devices being used to railroad the Bill through.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is evident to all of us that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is on trial, if I may speak figuratively, in the proceedings tonight. As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), the Minister claimed in the Standing Committee that the amendment would not rehybridise the Bill. It is perhaps not out of order for me to make it clear where in the proceedings the Minister said that.
The Minister briefly referred to the Select Committee in his extraordinarily short and deficient introduction of the motion. It was not worthy of a Minister who expected to have anything other than a quick reshuffle this summer. The Select Committee had to defend the case that was made in accordance with its guidelines. The Select Committee made a recommendation on its final day on 20 February 1992. It said that there was a problem with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in respect of the powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
The Committee said that there was a problem that would have to be dealt with either in Standing Committee or in the other place. When something comes before the House, it is obviously better for it to be dealt with by the House. The opportunity to do that was in the Standing Committee on 2 July last year. It was not taken, because an undertaking was given by the same Minister who introduced the motion with extraordinary, if understandable, brevity. I suppose that if he was from the far east, he would perhaps have come to the House and fallen on his ceremonial sword.
The motion says in effect that the Minister accepts that he was completely wrong. I see the Secretary of State trying to nod some words of encouragement to his junior Minister. Perhaps the junior Minister will respond to those encouraging words and defend his indefensible position. Perhaps he will explain how the words, "No Sir, it will not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill," are compatible with the motion before us. Is the Minister saying that he did not believe then that the amendment would rehybridise the Bill, but that he has since had further education and elucidation from Government legal advisers?
Was the Minister perhaps not using the 22-carat sincerity for which he is famous when he said, "No, Sir" to the Standing Committee last July? There must be some explanation. The Minister seems remarkably reluctant to give it—I put it no higher than that. [Interruption]" We seem to have a Whip who has departed from the Trappist vow by which he usually abides, even if we have a Minister who has taken the Trappist vow tonight, when he is not supposed to. I am not sure what is happening on the Government Front Bench tonight. Perhaps the Minister and the Whip have swapped jobs and we have not been told. Perhaps they have anticipated the summer reshuffle. We do not know.
Let us explain how the rehybridisation, which is a relatively rare parliamentary life form, comes about. It comes about largely as a result of the way in which the old private Bill meshed with the new Government-backed hybrid Bill. We have had four Bills on the Cardiff bay barrage—two private and two public. I shall not go through the whole history tonight—[HON. MEMBERS:"Go on."] I realise the public pressure on me to do exactly that, but I am sure that you would not find that to be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is one point at which the second Bill and the fourth Bill—which we are discussing—mesh together. They offer the explanation for the procedure being used by the Government as they attempt to escape from the trap that they have made for themselves.
The second Bill was initiated in November 1988 as a private Bill and died in early 1991 when the Government failed to win the closure motion. The Bill was then replaced by a hybrid Government Bill. I shall not expand on the third Bill, as it did not last long—it was one of the specialities of Nicholas Bennett, who was then the hon. Member for Pembroke. He believed that Wales needed the smack of firm, if incompetent, government, and the Bill died immediately. But he did not learn his lesson and introduced a second public Bill in November 1991, which we are discussing tonight.
The problem was that the research on groundwater had not been completed in November 1991. The day after the private Bill died because the closure motion was defeated, the Secretary of State said that the 12 months' worth of research on groundwater which the Select Committee on the private Bill had determined should he undertaken would still be carried out for the hybrid Bill. The research into groundwater was conducted over 12 months—it could not be completed in less time, as the effect on groundwater of the rainfall variations over the four seasons needed to be studied.
When the four-season study—which the Secretary of State agreed that the Government would continue to commission even though the private Bill was dead—was complete, the Secretary of State said—this is the key issue —that his groundwater consultant, Mr. Roy Stoner, head of the institute of irrigation studies at Southampton university, would advise him on the accuracy of the groundwater engineering studies conducted on the orders of the Cardiff Bay development corporation for the then dead private Bill. Mr. Stoner's report was published in January 1992. I have a copy with me tonight; it makes interesting reading, although I do not agree with everything in it, and the Government have not agreed to fund everything in it.
The report was the carry-over—I use the word "carry-over" in the normal vernacular sense, not in the technical parliamentary sense-—or bridge between the private Bill and the Bill before us. The Roy Stoner report covered the recommendations of the Select Committee on the private Bill which had died. The Secretary of State had agreed to abide by that Committee's undertakings when he presented the hybrid Bill, the second version of which we are discussing tonight.
The text of the private Bill was submitted in November 1991, whereas Roy Stoner did not publish his work until 1992—two months later. It is because of that two-month gap that we are here tonight. If the Government had waited until January 1992, we would not have faced a problem, because the results of Roy Stoner's recommendations could have been incorporated into the Bill, which would then have been a clean, not a dirty, Bill.
That is a fair description of the way in which the Bill has been messed up by the desire of the Minister's predecessor, Nicholas Bennett, to hurry everything through. He wanted everything to be done at 100 mph, but not in order to comply with the procedures of the House. We must all be jealous of those procedures—there are times when we regard them as a bore and times when we know that they are important to the rights of ordinary individuals in this


country who, for centuries, have had to petition the House if a Bill, whether hybrid or private, affects their property. That is the problem.
I realise that some people regard this story as complicated, but that is not our fault. It is the fault of Ministers. The Bill might be described as the parliamentary equivalent of "The Mousetrap". The idea was dreamed up by Lord Crickhowell, who I understand is the nephew of Agatha Christie. At any rate, we have been with the Bill in its various forms for five and a half years now; I know of no other Bill that has gone on that long. It has been an indescribable saga of incompetence on the part of the promoters and the Government. Tonight is another superb example of how the Government attempt to rush these measures through.
These are not only my views. The Chairman of the Select Committee came to the same conclusions, even though he is a Conservative Member. He now chairs the Defence Select Committee—

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): This is a filibuster.

Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State is trying to limit the rights of hon. Members, even though he once spoke for more than four hours on the Mersey ferries legislation. If, when he has read Hansard, he still believes that he has evidence of tedious repetition on my part, he may feel that he should take the Chair when he approaches the Prime Minister to learn what job he is to get in the summer reshuffle.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, dealing with the problem of what happens when the ground is saturated and may or may not qualify for the definition of flooding in such a way as to give Cardiff city council a responsibility for dealing with it, said:
This Committee is not entirely satisfied that the Bill in its present form covers that eventuality and we would hope, therefore, that the Bill would not proceed to the Statute Book without the position being much better clarified at a later stage of its progress through both Houses. Whether that is something best done by the Standing Committee of this House or by the Committee proceedings similar to this Committee which will take place in the other House. I leave the Promoters and those involved to judge. But I would put on record that the Committee is not entirely satisfied that the Bill as currently drafted gives adequate protection in those circumstances.
My points this evening are, thus, the same as those made by the Chairman of the Select Committee. After having failed to get satisfacton from Mr. Sullivan, who was acting for the Government and for the development corporation, the Committee wanted to know how he would deal with the fact that the city council did not believe that it had powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to deal with saturation flooding.
For some reason, Mr. Sullivan did not concede the point there and then. But the Committee did not agree with him, as we read on page 385 of its report. They conferred and concluded that Mr. Sullivan was wrong and the country bumpkin lawyers from Cardiff city council were right, and the city council did not have the powers to deal with saturation flooding. Therefore, it would require an amendment. We can only speculate why the Committee did not accept that, but there was enormous pressure on

the Committee from Government business managers to try to complete the Bill before the election. They knew that an election was pending.
The matter should have been dealt with there and then. The promoters should have come clean on 20 February and said, "The game is up. The city council is right and we concede that the saturation issue is not dealt with. The Land Drainage Act 1991 does not confer powers on local authorities to deal with such flooding and the only precedents for the definition of flooding to be used are those that are conventionally applied to over-the-ground flooding. Saturation flooding is an entirely different matter and will require an amendment to the Bill."
If that had been done and the promoters had acted without the pressure of an impending election, the Bill would have been rehybridised on 20 February 1992, 15 months ago, rather than now. I have already referred to the next opportunity for doing that, which was in the Standing Committee last July. That opportunity was not taken, not because the Standing Committee did not wish to take it but because the Minister gave an undertaking that his legal advice was still to the effect that the Land Drainage Act 1991 conferred such powers on Cardiff city council and, if it did not, it would not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill. We all knew he was wrong, and I think that he knew he was wrong, but he had to bluff his way through the Committee because the Government thought that it would be easier to deal with the matter in the other place. However, it has to be referred back here to our Standing Orders Committee.
We are debating the Bill tonight because the Minister did not take the opportunity to put the matter right in July in the Standing Committee and because the Select Committee was not hard enough with Government business managers because of pressure in the run-up to the election.
What are petitioners to make of this farrago of bungling and incompetence and lack of integrity in answering direct questions? We have to try to pick up the pieces by considering why, at this stage in the Bill's passage, we have to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee. Prior to debates on the Bill, people in Cardiff ask me, "Is the Bill now back in the House of Commons?" I say that it is not because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, the Bill is in the House of Lords. However, for a nanosecond tonight it has been magically transformed into a Commons measure again, only to be dispatched to the Examiners and probably to the Standing Orders Committee—depending on what the Examiners say.
It is a Commons motion tonight not because the House of Lords has asked us to debate it. The Lords do not make requests to this House and we do not make requests to them, but the practical effect is that the Lords have said, "Our Standing Committee has ruled that the amendment has the effect of rehybridising the Bill. That means that the Bill has not been advertised in the proper order before November 1991. The Commons may wish to consider that."
The Lords could have decided to consider it and that would not have caused us any problems, although one would still argue that the issue should have been dealt with much earlier by Government business managers. The Bill is now stuck halfway between the Lords Select Committee, which has completed its consideration, and has passed through the Standing Committee in the Lords which has


rules that it is now rehybridised. It has not yet gone to the Lords equivalent of a Committee of the whole House. It has not had a Report stage or Third Reading; nor have we considered—nor will we be considering—the merits or demerits of the amendments.
This is simply a procedural motion. The other place has not made a request, so in effect we are being asked by the Government to take note of the "message" from the other place. We are being asked to condone the way that the Government refused to concede, in the Select Committee last year, that the Bill was being rehybridised. The Select Committee knew on the final day that it sat, as, indeed, the legal advisers to the promoters did before the general election was called on 20 February, that the Bill had to be rehybridised, but they wanted to do that at the latest stage possible so as to cause the least stir possible.
That brings up the question how jealous we should be of the rights of petitioners and of our rights, but the former most of all. If the Government had done their homework properly, after the Secretary of State's groundwater expert had given his advice, they would have known that the city council would need additional powers to slit trenches underneath—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is too much noise.

Mr. Morgan: If the Government had done their job properly, they would have known that Cardiff city council was right. It knows its business, it knows how the land drainage Acts work, and so it should have the powers to deal with saturation. People who use the parks of Cardiff and have houses near the river might think that the council would need to go into their back gardens and dig slit trenches across and under garden walls, fish ponds, bike sheds, tool sheds, greenhouses or whatever it might be. They might not like it, but the council would have the power to do it compulsorily, and that would be part of the package that would have to be accepted with the Bill.
Unfortunately, the Government wanted to do it the slippery way, saying, "Okay, we'll tell you the main part of the Bill now, but we will keep this back until la ter." They decided to do that initially because of their incompetence, having rushed drafting of the Bill in November 1991, and later because they did not dare admit, while the Bill was before the House, what a mistake they had made. They wanted to brass-neck it out, and said that such matters would be easier to deal with in the other place.
That is not a good advertisement for the rights of the House, in both its Select Committees and Standing Committees. Fewer procedures in the other place to deal with such matters mean fewer rights for petitioners. Members of the other place have fewer rights in respect of rehybridisation. That is not an argument for doing something there, unless one is a Government business manager of the old school—we may have a few of those here tonight.
Putting the order through the other place would not have required an instruction from the Floor of the House. One is required here, which is why we are debating the motion now. Had it been done properly, in this House and in time and in order, the package of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill would have been much fairer to the potential petitioners, who would have known what to expect.
The Minister made the point—perhaps the only one in that abbreviated introduction—that nobody petitioned

against the Bill in the other place. The number of petitions against the Bill in the other place was enormous—10 more than in this place. There were 83 before the Commons Select Committee last summer; there were 93 before the other place earlier this year. That is what is known to the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation as "exhausted opposition". I understand that that is what he said on Radio 2 the other day. He also said that tenders were going out shortly. That is an unwise remark for any promoter of a private or hybrid Bill to make.
People should never presume about this House. The procedures of both Houses are based on the principle, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings", to paraphrase "Erskine May"—[Interruption]. If Damon Runyon had drafted "Erskine May", it would be, "It ain't over till the gracious lady signs." We do not take kindly to the attempt by the chairman of the corporation—a great friend and appointee of the Secretary of State—to presume that everything will proceed in the way he wants, despite the fact that there are still procedures to be followed and the rights of petitioners to be considered.
Obviously, there are times when we are in favour of a Bill and we think, "Let's get the whole thing over with; why are we fussing?" However, there are other times when our constituents are affected, so obviously we think differently. We must be sure that we do not condone bypass procedures, slack draftsmanship or Bills being drafted while the engineering studies are still under way. Indeed, the Secretary of State gave a commitment to the House about those studies. If, because of that, the Bill then comes to the House in a sloppy form, it must be put right by a backwoods procedure that means that petitioners—with the foreknowledge of the Government—can petition in only one House on certain aspects of the Bill.
I am sure that we all agree that, in principle, all petitioners should have the right to petition before both Houses of Parliament. If unexpected improvements are made to a Bill, of course we must accept that they will probably come halfway through the Bill's proceedings and can be dealt with only in the other place. However, in this case, the Government knew the details at the drafting stage, but still proceeded with the Bill, thereby ensuring that the petitioners would be heard in only one House rather than two. That was a matter of Government intent or of neglect of petitioners' rights.
Surely we should be jealous to protect those rights, whatever our views on the Bill. It is important to register the fact that we are not discussing the merits or demerits of the Bill.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great care. I can understand his criticism of the procedure that has brought us here tonight. However, I am not clear about the practical effect of what is happening. As I understand it, the motion is to refer to the Examiners an amendment that meets the concerns of the Select Committee, the Lords and the petitioners, including our colleagues on Cardiff city council, and that there is no petition against the amendment. If the procedural motion were to be passed, the amendment would then go to the Examiners.
Is my hon. Friend saying that that places us in a dilemma because we would either have to block an improvement to the Bill—which presumably we want—or appear to condone bad procedure? Is that the essence of my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Any improvement that is proposed late in the passage of a Bill inevitably places us in a dilemma, whatever our views about the barrage. We may say, "Procedurally this is a mess, but on the other hand, are we or are we not against this improvement requested by Cardiff city council?"
Tonight is not about the merits or demerits of the barrage or of Cardiff city council's amendments, which it should have been granted in the Select Committee a year last February. The Minister should have conceded in Standing Committee last year that it was necessary to incorporate them; he only agreed to incorporate them belatedly. Having denied in Committee that they would rehybridise the Bill, he agreed to incorporate them in another place.
We are not talking, either, about the merits or demerits of Cardiff city council acquiring powers, by amending the Land Drainage Act 1991, but about the bypass procedure being requested of the House tonight, which, in effect, condones the Government's bungling of the saturation flooding question.
The last thing that I want is to deny Cardiff city council the powers to deal with saturation flooding, but that should have been done in February 1992. The Government's business managers knew that all along, but acted in the way that they did because of the pressures of the upcoming election in February and because the procedures in another place for rehybridisation are easier than in this House, because they do not require an instruction from the Floor of the House.
Giving evidence to the Select Committee in January 1992, James Stewart Mackay said that it had all happened in a rush. People may ask, "With a Bill that has been before the House for five and a half years, how can anything be done in a rush?" But that is what occurred in November 1991. Mr. Mackay was asked by the Select Committee, "Are you saying that you actually gave this matter serious consideration in the city council?"—but the council did not have that much time to consider it. Nevertheless, it managed to get to the heart of the matter straight away. I believe that privately the Government's business managers also got to the heart of the matter straight away but did not want to tell this House.
The Government's business managers have not been straight with this House, and neither were they straight in pressurising the Standing Committee not to recommend that the Bill should incorporate the amendment to the Land Drainage Act 1991. They knew in their heart of hearts that that was required, but instead recommended that a correction should be made at a later stage. That later stage was reached in another place, when it should have been dealt with by the Standing Committee last July. The Minister has been shy about offering his view on those matters tonight, and obviously the Government did not do their homework.
The effect of not accepting the amendment tonight would, as far as one can tell, be relatively modest. It would not, I believe, kill the improvements. I should be happy to be corrected, if the Minister wants to rise from his torpor. The effect of the matter not going to the Standing Orders Committee now would be that we would allow the message from another place to rest on the table for the time being. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that.
The other place could then proceed, as it could have done when its Select Committee reported to its Standing Orders Committee that the effect would be to rehybridise

the Bill. It would then go before a Committee of the whole House in another place, and there could be a Report stage and Third Reading. It would then return to this House and be referred to the Standing Orders Committee by the Examiners, if it was felt that the change had rehybridised the Bill.
It is just a question whether we are happy for the Bill briefly to have a parallel life in both Houses. That is what we are discussing tonight. It is acceptable if we emphasise the fact that Cardiff city council has been proved right, and requires additional powers, contrary to what the promoters said in the Select Committee. I believe that they conceded the point to the city council within half an hour of the end of its sitting. That is not a very happy set of circumstances.
It could be said that allowing the motion to be passed would mean condoning this way of doing things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney implied, the Government business managers will get their way anyway, regardless of the rights of petitioners. It is the "crime pays" argument. Legislative crime pays: it is possible to bluff one's way through a Standing Committee, as the Minister does by saying "No, Sir," when he should have said "Yes, Sir." I hope that a suitable opportunity will arise for him to tell us why he said that this development would not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill.
The silence is deafening. If Ministers who cannot defend themselves choose to remain silent, we can all read into it whatever we wish. Is the Minister willing to accept that he was uttterly, miserably wrong when he said "No, Sir" in July last year?

Mr. Ron Davies: Answer.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister now wish us to pretend that that did not happen—that he was not there? Did the Eskimos take over for a day?

Mr. Davies: Answer.

Mr. Morgan: Did a doppelganger or lookalike turn up in Committee on the day concerned? [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions, and there have been one or two private conversations as well.

Mr. Morgan: However, we may take the view that the emphasis should be on ensuring that ministerial conduct is of the best, and on an unwillingness to condone slack, incompetent, bungling ministerial conduct. If we take that view, we must adopt a strong line. The Minister could, and should, have put matters right well before now: he should have taken the legislative consequences if the Bill had to be delayed by two, six or 12 months. That does not matter, as long as the rights of petitioners are dealt with fairly. People should know who will be affected when a Bill is presented to this House, as this Bill was in November 1991.
Everyone is supposed to know by a certain date—usually in November—which private and hybrid Bills are being presented, in what form they are being presented and whether they themselves will be affected. Some users of property in the affected area knew in November 1991 that the Bill would affect them; others did not. We are concerned tonight with those who did not.
The Minister said that no one had petitioned against this aspect of the Bill. I entirely accept that; but the people


concerned did not petition because they had been placed in an impossible position. If they petition against the Bill in the other place when it has already been given half its consideration, they will be left in the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Anyone who petitions effectively against that aspect of the Bill in isolation—in isolation, because it has arisen at a late stage in the other place—will be faced with a dilemma: "Do I want an improvement in the Bill which, according to the city council, is necessary to prevent saturation flooding? If I do, I should like to have been told nevertheless. I should have been given the total package of the Bill, with all its consequences, when it was first presented."
That is the problem that we encounter when Bills are drafted incompetently. The material date for those who knew about the effects on their property to petition against the Bill was November 1991; but those whose property was affected by the clause that we are discussing did not know until earlier this year, when the Bill went to another place and the Government introduced their amendment. Their rights have been adversely affected. They were not told. It was not something that came like a bolt from the blue: it was already implicit in the work that the Government's own engineering adviser, Roy Stoner, was doing. It is not good enough to say, "We will make it up as we go along and put it right when we feel like it."
The Government have put themselves in a position of extraordinary weakness—as they did in May 1991, when they failed to get a closure; in July 1991, when the first hybrid Bill failed to get through the Standing Orders Committee; and again in November 1991, when the present Bill was drafted, two months before the Government's own engineering adviser, who could have told the Secretary of State what would need to be incorporated in the Bill if it was ever to reach a satisfactory state of engineering competence, finished his work. But engineering competence, as well as political competence, is something that we have learnt the hard way not to expect from the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European C'ommunity documents),

Orders of the Day — CONCENTRATION IN THE MEDIA

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4213/93, relating to concentration in the media; welcomes the Commission's intention to have a full and open consultation on this issue; and requests the

Government to respond to the document in a way which takes full account of the principle of subsidiarity, having also taken full account of the views expressed in European Standing Committee B on 12th May.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

Orders of the Day — FISHERIES AGREEMENT: ARGENTINA

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4769/93, relating to a proposed fisheries agreement between the European Economic Community and the Argentine Republic; and supports the Government's determination to secure an agreement which, whilst safeguarding the United Kingdom's position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, provides for the Community's involvement in the development of Argentina's fishing resources.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.
That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Mr. Tim Devlin: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 16,000 signatories throughout the country. The petition has been compiled by the Pro Dogs national charity, north-east branch, and reads:
To the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of Pro Dogs national charity, north-east branch and undersigned petitioners sheweth that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 requires amendment to provide safeguards for law-abiding dog owners and their dogs. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to allow discretion when considering the destruction of dogs which may be exercised on the particular facts of each case.

To lie upon the Table.

Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Dr. Joe Hendron: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the Royal Victoria hospital, which, by any standards, is the finest hospital in western Europe. It was the first hospital in the world to have a cardiac ambulance. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, in Britain, owe their lives to the expertise and brilliance of the magnificent staff of that hospital. Those people include members of the security forces.
The facilities of the hospital include the accident and emergency unit, which is the very heart of the hospital. They include general medical and general surgical beds and the regional specialties of thoracic surgery, neurosurgery and cardiac surgery.
On Friday 14 May, thousands of people in Belfast marched through the city centre to the headquarters of the Eastern health and social services board. There was a howling wind and it was pouring with rain. Those people came from the Catholic Falls road and the Protestant Shankhill road; Nationalists and Unionists crossed the sectarian divide to bring one message to the Eastern board and the Department—to take their hands off the Royal Victoria hospital, which has served that community so well over the years.
I should like to acknowledge the help that I have received from the NUPE and COHSE trade unions, the representatives of the West Belfast health monitoring committee, the management of the Royal Victoria hospital trust and the medical and general staff of the hospital in making my case for that hospital.
When the hospital management team was preparing to respond to the "Statement of Intent" from the Eastern health and social services board for general (acute) hospital services within that board, the discussion was pre-empted and superseded by recent proposals on purchasing strategy for 1993–94. The board offered the hospital a contract that would result in 1,200 fewer general surgical operations, elective operations, plus 1,500 fewer ear, nose and throat procedures. The prospect of a substantial reduction in elective general surgery and ENT procedure is viewed with great alarm by everyone on the hospital staff.
The medical staff feel that it is most unfortunate that a discussion about the acute hospital services for 1994 and beyond should be rendered so pointless by changes to be introduced in 1993. It is quite bizarre that disciplines with a particular value for undergraduate teaching and research, and hence "star" supplement, should be removed from the hospital. That will lead to a loss of income that will further accelerate the downward spiral on which the hospital now seems set.
The present process of contracting contravenes the DHSS management executive's guiding principles, as set out in a document published in consultation with the boards. That document deals with stability, and states:
Contracting should not lead to the disruption and destabilisation of services, nor should it lead to the disruption of education and training.
That is exactly what it has done. That document also states:

In the first year of contracting, Boards and Units will maintain a steady state"—
it is important to stress the use of the words "steady state"—
except where changes have been planned and mutually agreed. Where changes in current service patterns are proposed, adequate notice must be given to allow the parties involved to make and manage the adjustments.
That is a farce, when one considers the type of contract that the board tried to force on the Royal Victoria hospital recently.
At a recent meeting with the officers of the Eastern board, I asked about consultation. I was told that one cannot consult over every major issue that requires a decision. My goodness, this contract arrangement is the most important decision to be put to the Royal Victoria in my 30 years as a general practitioner in west Belfast.
In its own document, the Eastern board accepts that only three hospitals in its area reach the required standard of clinical effectiveness. It then proceeds to downgrade one of them.
The removal of 1,200 general surgical operations from the Royal Victoria represents one third of the work of general surgeons. They will also be expected to continue to treat complex, major surgical cases referred to them from elsewhere. I am not talking about regional specialities of the hospital, but the work of the general surgeons. They are so experienced that cases are referred to them from other parts of the north of Ireland. They are expected to undertake that work as well as emergency work. That means that in future, if a local doctor refers his patients to the Royal Victoria, those patients will be turned away and sent elsewhere.
One senior surgeon told me that, if he carried out an endoscopy on a patient with stomach cancer, that person would then be sent home and his GP would have to arrange for admission to another hospital. That may lead to a possible delay of one month.
When it comes to trauma, the Royal Victoria is the only hospital with neurology, thoracic surgery, cardiac surgery and burns units. Major trauma also requires a general surgical input. If surgery procedures are run down this year, they will never recover. The Royal Victoria hospital now has fewer than half the beds it had five years ago.
It is important to realise that, at the initial tender for the contract, the Royal Victoria hospital was the cheapest of all the providers, but the Eastern health board held a Dutch auction in reverse, toing and froing between the Royal Victoria, the Ulster and City hospitals, and finished by proposing to withdraw services from the Royal Victoria.
It is hard for the Royal Victoria to come to terms with the fact that, within a few weeks of obtaining trust status, it has been plunged into a deeper and more severe financial crisis than it has previously experienced. Indeed, the future of the hospital's clinical profile is in great jeopardy.
The strategy encouraged by the board in its "Statement of Intent" document relies wholly on four highly suspect assumptions. The first has to do with population changes. It is assumed that the population of central Belfast will continue to move to outlying areas of the board. The second assumption involves new health care identities and the belief that the Eastern health board population can legitimately be forced into three new catchment areas. Phrases such as "east and west of the Lagan" are used


—anyone who knows Northern Ireland has heard of "east and west of the Bann" but not "east and west of the Lagan".
The other assumptions talk about a reduction in services purchased by other boards and a reduction in acute care in west Belfast. The implication is that there will be fewer cases from west Belfast.
The board defines accessibility as giving the best possible access to patients, visitors and staff, geographically and in terms of ready availability and having regard to safety. However, the board fails to define what it means by safety and completely ignores the sectarian geography of Belfast. I do not like using such language, because I am not a sectarian person, but it is a fact of life. To give an example, the people of Poleglass and Twinbrook on the edge of west Belfast will not go to the Lagari Valley hospital, because they look on the Royal Victoria hospital as their hospital.
A number of reports in recent years, including "The Health Divide", the Black report, which dealt with health inequalities, and independent studies in the British Medical Journal, all link unemployment and poverty to ill health. West Belfast has approximately 40 per cent. of the total number of unemployed people in Belfast and 10·7 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. North and west Belfast have the highest percentage of low birth weight babies. Of the 12 wards in Northern Ireland rated to have the worst overall health, six are in west Belfast.
We must show that we care about our sick, injured, frail, old and deprived people, whoever they may be and wherever they live. Managers at the Royal Victoria hospital have given the lead by refusing to sign the Eastern health board contract. The chairman of the Royal group of hospitals, Dr. George Quigley, has called for an independent inquiry into the board's proposals for health care provision, and I support that call.
Last Friday, I had a meeting with the Secretary of State about his recent trip to the United States. I accept in good faith the fact that he was genuinely trying to get inward investment into Northern Ireland, although other subjects were also discussed. However, I would say to him and to the Earl of Arran that any attempt to run down the Royal Victorial hospital, which is the major employer in west Belfast and the surrounding area, would make ring hollow any promises made from the United States or projects such as "making Belfast work".
Apparently, there is to be arbitration between the management executive and the board, but the Secretary of State and his Ministers are now directly involved. I hope that common sense will prevail and that the Royal Victoria hospital will be allowed to continue to provide the outstanding service that it has given for so many years.

Mr. John Hume: With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), I should also like to question the Minister on this very serious and highly emotional issue. The Royal Victoria hospital is important not only to Belfast but to all the people of Northern Ireland.
At the important level of what could be described as the public health of the people of Northern Ireland in terms of their relationships with each other, the Government are rightly anxious to get both sections of our community working together, especially in their common interests.
Nowhere in Northern Ireland has shown a greater example of that than the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast and its staff. The staff are drawn almost 50:50 from both sections of our community.
Throughout the past terrible 20 years, and in spite of its location, there has never been a single sectarian incident in the hospital among the staff. In spite of their differences, they have worked solidly to deal with the health of the people who come to them. They have become internationally expert in dealing not only with heart cases, but with many of the illnesses that arise out of the trauma of our violent situation.
The hospital has given an example to the world. Despite the weather in the streets of Belfast last week, all those in the hospital, from the highest consultant to the medical staff, the nurses, the porters and the domestic staff, were together, solidly backed by the people of the Shankhill road and the people of the Falls road. When we get such agreement in Northern Ireland, we surely have a duty to maintain it, especially when it deals with something that is fundamental to us all—the health of our people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) for raising the question of the future of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. As a general practitioner in west Belfast, the hon. Gentleman is an authority on the Royal Victoria and he is respected there, just as he is respected here for that knowledge and dedication.
My colleague Lord Arran, who has responsibility for health and social services matters in Northern Ireland, has asked me to say that he is naturally extremely concerned by the stories that have been circulating about this renowned hospital, which has for a very long time held a pre-eminent position as the premier teaching hospital and centre of medical excellence in Northern Ireland. It is also greatly valued as the general hospital for the people of west Belfast. On his behalf, I welcome this opportunity to make clear the Government's views on the Royal Victoria hospital and on its future role. I hope that they will add to the hon. Gentleman's conversation with the Secretary of State last Friday.
I begin, therefore, by making it absolutely clear that the hospital will continue in each of the capacities mentioned. There is no question of the Royal Victoria losing either of them, let alone of its closing, or of a conspiracy to bring it to its knees by a series of cuts in its services. On the contrary, we wish to develop the benefit of the enormous capital investment in the past in the hospital and in the associated hospitals in the group which make up the Royal group of hospitals.
For example, over the past five years, some £13 million has been spent on a variety of schemes on the Royal group of hospitals site. Current major building schemes on the RGH site under construction or about to start amount to some £18 million. The schemes include new laboratories, a new mortuary, an extension to the dental hospital and further redevelopment of the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children. Only recently, my colleague Lord Arran opened a new magnetic resonance imaging unit at the Royal, the very latest in high-tech diagnostic equipment and the only one in Northern Ireland.
Within the past two years, new cardiac surgery theatres have been built, and a new cardiac catheterisation unit and cardiac intensive care beds have been provided. Over the past five years, Government have spent some £13 million on major schemes alone and are now spending or plan to spend a further £18 million. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that there is no intention of allowing those enormous investments to go to waste.
I want to put it firmly on the record that the future of the Royal group is secure. The hon. Member for Belfast, West, of all people, will, with his expert medical knowledge to which I have alluded, recognise that advances in medical and surgical research and practice justify and demand changes in the provision of hospital services if full advantage of them is to be gained. Any examination of the history of the RVH will reveal that it has evolved very successfully over the years to meet the demands made upon it and to embrace the newest medical and technological developments. I have every confidence that it will continue to do that.
The Government have introduced an internal market into the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland reflecting what has happened here in Great Britain. That means that the health and social services boards and some GPs have become purchasers of services and that hospitals, such as the Royal group of hospitals trust, which I am pleased to have helped establish, have become largely autonomous providers which are expected to respond to the requirements of their purchasers and to compete among themselves to secure contracts.
The Government expect boards and GP fundholders to use the contracting process and the spur of competition to tackle inefficiencies. That should improve the quality of services and develop new services. The RGH trust, like every other provider, will be expected to participate fully in this process and to adapt as necessary to meet the requirements of its purchasers.
I should like if I may to say a few words about the position of the Eastern health and social services board, which, as the Royal's principal purchaser, can be expected to have a considerable degree of influence over the future direction of the Royal. I am aware that the chairman of the Eastern board made it clear last week that the board envisages a continuing and important role for the Royal, and we naturally welcome that.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, West if fully aware, the board has proposed a number of changes to the pattern of hospital services in its area, and those are set out in its "Statement of Purchasing Intent for Acute Hospital Services". The closing date for comments on that was 14 May. I know that the hon. Gentleman, along with many others, has made his views fully known to the board, and indeed in person to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
My noble Friend Lord Arran has made it clear that he does not intend to comment at this stage on the merits or otherwise of the board's proposals. After all, the board will need to weigh the very many responses which it has received, and to reach its own conclusions about the future direction of acute hospital services in the Eastern area as part of its remit. However, I know that the board is fully aware that its conclusions must come to the Minister

responsible for health and social services for his endorsement before they can be reflected in the board's future purchasing intentions.
My noble Friend will want in particular to be satisfied that Queen's university will continue to be able to discharge its clinical teaching and research responsibilities satisfactorily and that the very specialised regional medical services, provided almost entirely in the two Belfast teaching hospitals, will be properly safeguarded.
I am aware, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that a matter of more immediate alarm and concern is the board's proposals for the purchase of services from the Royal in 1993–94. I hope what I have said about the security of the Royal's future will go far to dispel that concern.
The board has a duty, however, to ensure that the money available to it is spent in a way that secures the maximum provision of services of the high quality that is needed and expected. That must be beyond question. Unnecessary expenditure is money wasted that could be spent on more operations, improved facilities for patients, and on scanners, drugs, hospital amenities and anything that could benefit patients in Northern Ireland.
While mentioning patients, I must stress that the reason for our reforms—remembering that any money saved in our health reforms is ploughed back into patient care—is to benefit patients. As far as we are concerned, patients are the most important people in the provision of a national health service.
I value greatly, as does Lord Arran, the excellent service provided by doctors, nurses and all those who work in ancillary services in our hospitals. We take pride in the quality of health in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is second to none. The patients do and must come first. Therefore, we must ensure that their needs are answered. That is why the board must look carefully at relative costs when considering future contracts. The board has reached agreement with all the other providers, but at present there is disagreement with the Royal group and the City hospital as to the board's proposals.
The hon. Gentleman set out the nature of those proposals. Their purpose is to secure the delivery of general surgery and ENT treatment as the lowest available cost but with no decline in standards. The proposals derive from the respective costings offered by the Royal and the City hospital and from no hidden agenda of any sort.
The Management Executive of the Department of Health and Social Services has been asked to resolve the issue. It will aim to do that as quickly as possible, in consultation with both parties. It will, of course, wish to take into account the reliability of the costings offered by both the Royal and the City hospital, but it will wish to consider a number of other factors, including the implications of the proposed transfer of admissions for teaching and specialised regional services.
Both Lord Arran and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State are well aware of the concerns that many have raised about the impact of any reductions in services at the Royal, both on the accessibility of hospital services for the population of west and north Belfast and the unemployment level there. The unemployment level in west Belfast is already extremely high. Lord Arran has asked me to say that he will ensure that those areas are examined most carefully both in seeking a resolution of the


contract issue between the eastern board and the Royal in 1993–94 and assessing the board's longer-term proposals for the Royal.
Hospitals do not exist in total isolation from the communities that they serve. Hospitals are part of the community. Therefore, the provision of services in west Belfast is an important contribution to the economy of that area. That point is admitted, and will be taken into account by my noble Friend when he takes his consideration of these issues later.
I know that Lord Arran has been concerned that a good deal of the negotiation process between the board and the Royal has been exposed to the media and that that has caused widespread concern in the public at large about the future of the Royal and their access to services. Both he and I regard this as most regrettable. I would ask those who have chosen to go public in that way—while doubtless for the best of motives—to consider carefully whether that is serving the best interests of the public and patients.

Mr. Hume: When the Minister talks about people going public and dealing with the best interests of the patients, he must realise that he is talking about the senior consultants, the medical staff, the nursing staff and the entire staff of the hospital, who have provided the outstanding service to which he referred. Last week, they went public in a powerful way. If they are deeply concerned about this matter, is it any wonder that the rest of us are concerned?

Mr. Hanley: What I said still stands. I have no wish on earth to believe that the doctors, the nurses or any of those involved in the ancillary services have anything other than the interests of patients at heart. I said that they had done What they did for understandable reasons.
But they are in a process of negotiation. I do not believe that making the matter public has created the right atmosphere within which sensible decisions can necessarily be taken. It increases worry and tension.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: No. I am coming to the end now, and I want to complete my speech.
To go public during the contracting process is undesirable.

Mr. McNamara: What about the public interest?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman mentions the public interest. I am answering the public interest. I hope that the debate tonight helps to answer the public interest and assure the people not only of Belfast but of Northern Ireland that the future of the Royal Victoria hospital is secure.
There have been calls from some quarters for the Department of Health and Social Services to set aside the board's strategic planning process for hospital services and carry out a regional overview. My colleague Lord Arran has rejected that, on the grounds that boards are expected to plan their services within regional guidelines issued by the Department. That is what the Eastern board is required to do, and exactly what it is doing. I am sure that we can resolve the issues in the coming weeks.
The Royal Victoria hospital is, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, pre-eminent in its field. I spent many months when I was the Minister with responsibility for health and social services dealing with the Royal and its on-going problems and trying to secure the service for the future. I believe that that future is secure, as I have said several times this evening, but no hospital can stand still and say that, because it exists, it should therefore be funded. It has to justify its existence and improve its service to the public in terms of the medicine that it provides, the new techniques which are available and the added expectations of the public.
In the national health service, we provide neither a job protection scheme nor furniture warehouses. We provide places where skills will meet the needs of patients. Therefore, the hospital will succeed into the future, and the funding that the Government have provided for Northern Ireland will continue to increase. I believe that the future of the Royal Victoria hospital is secure for patients. I hope that the negotiations in the coming few weeks will prove that that is so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, West for the contribution that he has made tonight, which I
am sure is an important part of that debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve midnight.